https://agrospectrumasia.com/rssfeed/opinion/agrospectrum%20analysis agrospectrum analysis https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4666/agplenus-takes-fungicide-discovery-beyond-chemistry.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4666/agplenus-takes-fungicide-discovery-beyond-chemistry.html Wed, 16 Sep 2026 14:09:11 +0530 Fungicide discovery is confronting a difficult equation: resistance is accelerating, while finding genuinely new modes of action remains costly, slow and inherently high-risk. In this exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Dr. Dan J. Gelvan, CEO of AgPlenus, explains how artificial intelligence could alter that equation by improving the odds of identifying viable molecules before they enter the laboratory. AgPlenus’ Antifungal Potency Predictor (APP) is built to reduce the experimental burden of conventional discovery, but Gelvan argues that chemistry is only the beginning. The bigger prize is predictive biology—anticipating field performance, toxicology, phytotoxicity and environmental behaviour before costly development decisions are made. AgPlenus therefore sees AI not as a faster screening tool, but as a way to progressively de-risk the entire fungicide pipeline. Its target-based strategy deliberately focuses on novel modes of action, with Septoria, Botrytis and Fusarium among the pathogen areas under consideration. As resistance reshapes crop protection, the interview explores whether AI can make first-in-class fungicide discovery not just faster, but economically viable. The fungicide industry has struggled with resistance for decades despite continuous innovation. How fundamentally does the Antifungal Potency Predictor change the economics and success rates of fungicide discovery compared with conventional R&D approaches? The Antifungal Potency Predictor (APP) should be assessed alongside our broader developmental approach, which includes discovering novel fungicide targets to establish new modes of action. Resistance is typically tied to a fungicide’s target and mode of action, so introducing novel targets into the discovery pipeline creates an opportunity to develop truly novel fungicides that can help address resistance. The challenge is that discovering entirely new chemical entities against novel targets is, by definition, a high-risk, time-consuming and expensive process. Conventional approaches require significant experimental work to identify and validate promising molecules. The APP is designed to improve the odds of success within that inherently risky process by helping us identify molecules with greater potential before we invest heavily in synthesis and downstream testing. In doing so, it can reduce unnecessary experimentation, saving both time and money while improving the efficiency of the discovery process. AI models are only as robust as the data they are trained on. Without revealing proprietary information, what distinguishes AgPlenus' datasets and machine learning architecture from those used by competitors developing AI-driven crop protection solutions? We have invested significant resources in building a proprietary dataset specifically for this purpose. It combines both external data and internal data generated specifically for the project, giving us a foundation that is tailored to the questions we are trying to answer in antifungal discovery. The quality and curation of the dataset are particularly important. We collected and curated the data using state-of-the-art AI tools, with the objective of understanding not only which molecular features are associated with activity, but also which features are associated with a lack of activity. Having sufficient and well-chosen negative examples is essential for effective machine learning because the model needs to distinguish between molecules that are likely to work and those that are not. This allows the APP to learn a more meaningful representation of the relationship between molecular structure and antifungal activity, rather than simply identifying patterns among successful compounds. ChemPass AI for Ag now predicts target affinity and antifungal potency before synthesis. What remains the biggest scientific bottleneck in bringing an AI-discovered molecule from computational prediction to commercial fungicide registration? Fungicides go through a long development process that is focused not only on efficacy, but also on environmental safety and the overall suitability of a molecule for practical use. The main sources of failure tend to be field performance, toxicological profile and off-target phytotoxicity. A molecule can perform well at an early discovery stage and still fail when it encounters the much more complex conditions of development and field use. We see this as an opportunity as much as a threat. Every time a molecule advances through the development funnel, it risks failing at the next step. Rather than viewing AI simply as a tool for identifying molecules, our goal is to build a string of predictive algorithms, with each algorithm targeting a different stage of the process. Together, these models could progressively de-risk the entire discovery and development pipeline. The objective is therefore to extend predictive capability beyond chemistry and potency to the biological, safety and performance questions that ultimately determine whether a fungicide can become a successful commercial product. The crop protection industry is increasingly shifting from discovering 'better molecules' to discovering entirely new modes of action. How confident are you that AI can consistently identify first-in-class fungicides rather than incremental improvements to existing chemistry? AgPlenus works exclusively on new modes of action. Our mission is to help overcome the rising resistance of crops to pesticides by developing fundamentally new approaches to crop protection. Our process starts with an AI-based workstream that we call Target Selector, which identifies new essential targets in the target organism. Our molecular discovery process is then target-based: we look for molecules that bind to a specific protein target in order to elicit the desired biological effect. The choice of target is therefore central to the discovery process. By choosing new targets, we are, by definition, choosing new modes of action for our lead candidates. This is different from taking an existing mode of action and attempting to optimise the chemistry around it. Our focus is on identifying biological vulnerabilities that can provide the foundation for an entirely new class of fungicides. Your pipeline currently includes targets against Septoria Wheat Blotch, with plans to expand into Botrytis and Fusarium. What criteria determine which pathogens become priorities, and where do you see the greatest unmet commercial opportunity over the next decade? We closely monitor resistance pressures as they emerge in the field and combine that information with commercial analysis to determine which fungi and crops should be prioritised. Resistance is an important part of the equation, but it is not the only consideration. We also need to understand the commercial relevance of the crop and pathogen and whether our target-based discovery approach can address the biological problem effectively. Because our discovery approach is target-based, a compound that inhibits a particular protein will not necessarily be active against fungi in which that target is absent or is not essential. That biological constraint is an important part of how we think about the pipeline. We therefore favour targets that are expressed across multiple fungi where possible, but we are not pursuing the conventional path of trying to build one broad-spectrum fungicide that works indiscriminately across pathogens. Instead, the potential scope of the fungi we can address is defined by the target itself. This target-driven approach allows us to focus our resources on pathogens where there is both a meaningful need and a compelling biological rationale. Large agrochemical companies are investing heavily in AI-driven discovery, while biotech startups are pursuing similar ambitions. Beyond speed, what competitive advantage will ultimately determine leadership in AI-enabled crop protection—data ownership, algorithms, biological validation, or strategic partnerships? AI has largely levelled the playing field for startups. The old paradigm relied heavily on massive parallel synthesis and high- or ultra-high-throughput screening, which required significant capital investment and large experimental infrastructures. AI-based discovery changes that equation by reducing the need for synthesis by orders of magnitude and, consequently, shrinking the experimental burden. However, speed alone will not determine success. Biological validation, and predictive biology more broadly, will remain the biggest challenge in this field. Chemistry matters, but a pesticide ultimately has to perform under real field conditions, where biological systems are considerably more complex than the controlled environments used during early discovery. That means the real competitive advantage will come from our ability to predict the biology, not simply the chemistry. The APP is an example of this approach: it is designed to predict antifungal potency before synthesis. We see the same principle extending across the development pipeline, with predictive tools helping us understand which candidates are most likely to succeed as they move from computational discovery into increasingly complex biological and field environments. With regulatory expectations and sustainability demands becoming increasingly stringent worldwide, how do you anticipate AI-driven molecule discovery influencing the environmental profile, development timelines, and regulatory approval process for future fungicides? Environmental profiling and regulatory approval are among the hardest things to predict, which is precisely where we believe AI needs to be applied. The value of AI is not limited to solving relatively easy optimisation problems. It should also be applied to the difficult questions that determine whether a molecule can ultimately become a viable pesticide. As we develop predictive capabilities across the discovery and development process, environmental and regulatory characteristics are important areas where those capabilities can potentially create value. If we can identify potential issues earlier, we can make better-informed decisions about which molecules to advance and which ones to deprioritise. It is tempting to use AI to solve easy problems, such as finding the fastest route home, but the real value comes from putting it to work on hard problems. That is exactly what we are doing at AgPlenus: applying AI to difficult biological and development questions where better prediction could have a meaningful impact on the efficiency and risk profile of pesticide discovery. Looking ahead five to ten years, do you envision AgPlenus evolving primarily as an AI-powered discovery engine partnering with global crop protection companies, or as a developer advancing proprietary fungicide assets further toward commercialization? What strategic milestones should the industry watch for? We are building a pipeline of partnered products. Whether we initiate a given project ourselves or collaborate with a partner that initiated it is less important than our core business model: building a unique pipeline of novel mode-of-action pesticides. Our objective is to create value through that pipeline and through the ability to discover and develop products based on new biological targets. Partnerships are an important part of that model because they provide a route to combining our discovery capabilities with the development and commercial capabilities required to bring products to market. From our perspective, therefore, any progress in the pipeline is strategic. The key milestones are not limited to the evolution of the AI platform itself; they include progress in identifying and validating novel targets, discovering active molecules, advancing candidates through development and ultimately building a portfolio of partnered products based on genuinely new modes of action. -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4648/why-africa-could-become-indias-next-agricultural-sourcing-frontier.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4648/why-africa-could-become-indias-next-agricultural-sourcing-frontier.html Fri, 11 Sep 2026 16:37:45 +0530 What if Africa’s biggest agricultural opportunity is not producing more — but becoming more predictable? As global food markets rethink sourcing, the continent’s ability to deliver consistent quality, traceable supply and reliable procurement could matter as much as its vast production potential. In an exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Nkiruka Anthonia Egbe, Sales Director, Complete Farmer, argues that procurement, rather than production alone, is the real challenge standing between African farmers and global markets. She examines how digital procurement, farm-level data and traceability can bring greater visibility and confidence to fragmented supply chains. For India, this opens an important strategic conversation around sourcing commodities such as cashews, sesame and soybeans from Africa. But building a durable India–Africa agricultural corridor will require more than competitive prices; it will require consistency, transparency and trust.  Can Africa become the world's next strategic sourcing hub? Absolutely, but becoming a global sourcing hub requires far more than raw production capacity. Global buyers are demanding structural reliability, strict crop standardization, and end-to-end traceability. Take India as a prime example: bilateral trade between New Delhi and Africa crossed the $100 billion mark in 2025, with agriculture serving as a foundational pillar. However, Indian importers sourcing critical commodities like sesame and soybean often face friction around fragmented supply chains, post-harvest losses, and delivery delays. Africa’s long-term competitive advantage therefore won't come from low farmgate prices alone; it will stem from its ability to offer dependable, transparent supply chains. At Complete Farmer, we bridge this exact gap through our CF Grower and CF Buyer platforms. CF Grower equips African smallholders with precision tools, data-driven inputs, and standardized cultivation protocols to guarantee yield quality. On the flip side, CF Buyer allows international procurement teams, including Indian food conglomerates and trading houses, to contract directly with vetted suppliers in West Africa with real-time visibility from planting to port. Is Africa's biggest agricultural challenge production—or procurement? For decades, international development and trade policy focused almost entirely on production, but the biggest bottleneck remains the absence of structured procurement systems that can reliably connect fragmented farmers to global demand. Consider raw cashews or pulses: Africa produces over 50% of the world's raw cashew nuts, yet a massive percentage of these crops undergo long, fragmented procurement routes before reaching processing hubs in India (like Kollam or Mangaluru) or Vietnam. The issue isn't whether African soil can grow the crop: it’s the supply chain design between the farm gate and the shipping container. Procurement requires coordinating thousands of fragmented smallholders, enforcing quality control, securing storage, and managing default risk. If an Indian buyer orders 500 metric tons of sesame or soybean and faces a 20% quality variation upon arrival at Mundra, the trade model breaks down. In Africa, the conversation must shift from "How do we grow more?" to "How do we build digital procurement corridors that give international buyers 100% contract confidence?" That is what we are trying to do at Complete Farmer. Can technology formalise Africa's informal agricultural economy? The true power of technology lies in converting informal farming into investment-grade, bankable supply chains. With over 60% of Sub-Saharan Africa’s population consisting of smallholder farmers, the sector has historically suffered from informal pricing, lack of grading, and opaque middleman networks. When you deploy digital infrastructure, such as satellite crop monitoring, predictive yield modeling, and digital field logs, you formalize the process at the root level. By digitizing farm management through protocols like Complete Farmer's platform, we give foreign buyers visibility into crop health and expected output 60 to 90 days before harvest. This level of predictability allows Indian agro-processors to plan factory capacity, lock in forward contracts, and de-risk South-South agricultural trade. Traceability is becoming a licence to trade. Is Africa ready? Traceability is increasingly a prerequisite for global market access. With tightening European ESG mandates, strict Indian FSSAI import regulations on pesticide residue (MRLs), and rising sanitary/phytosanitary (SPS) compliance, non-traceable commodities will soon be untradeable. Africa has a unique opportunity to leapfrog legacy paper-based systems by adopting digital-first, farm-to-shipment tracking. By embedding technology such as GPS field mapping, digital batching, and chain-of-custody tracking directly into the procurement platform, compliance becomes an automatic byproduct of doing business rather than a costly administrative burden. When an Indian importer can scan a QR code on a consignment of African non-GMO soybeans or spices and verify its origin, field history, and chemical compliance, it completely transforms counterparty trust. Is agricultural data becoming Africa's most valuable export? In the age of AI and predictive analytics, verified agricultural data is becoming as valuable as the physical yield itself. Data points collected across platforms like Complete Farmer, including soil nutrient profiles, micro-climate weather forecasts, pest outbreak alerts, and real-time harvest schedules, eliminate operational blind spots for international buyers and help reduce risk. For major Indian trade houses managing volatile commodity markets, access to live African production intelligence allows them to forecast domestic prices, manage hedging strategies, and optimize sourcing decisions months in advance. Africa's long-term strength lies in becoming a trusted provider of data-backed, predictable agricultural supply. Has global food procurement entered a post-globalisation era? We have entered an era where supply chain resilience is prioritized over pure, bottom-dollar cost optimization. The disruptions of recent years demonstrated the extreme vulnerability of concentrated sourcing networks. Global buyers now seek diversification to shield themselves from climate shocks and trade choke points. This creates an extraordinary strategic opening for the India–Africa trade corridor. India’s massive domestic market, which consumes millions of tons of imported pulses, oilseeds, and other agricultural products annually, needs long-term, diversified sourcing partners. Africa has significant agricultural potential, but unlocking that potential requires infrastructure, market access, and systems that connect farmers to reliable demand. Together, India and Africa can build a resilient South-South trading corridor that enhances livelihoods for African farmers and allows Indian procurement teams to access quality goods at predictable, stable prices. Can procurement become a catalyst for rural transformation? Absolutely. Commercial certainty is the single most powerful driver of rural economic growth. When smallholder farmers are connected to structured, transparent procurement platforms, they can grow into scalable, bankable businesses. Guaranteed contracts at fair market prices allow African farmers to secure formal micro-financing, invest in high-quality seeds, adopt climate-resilient practices, and increase their yield productivity. When international buyers purchase through transparent platforms, more value stays at the farmgate rather than being lost through middlemen, driving widespread rural transformation and financial inclusion across the continent. What will define the winners in Africa's agritech decade? The next decade will belong to fully integrated, end-to-end procurement networks. Agriculture is an interconnected chain. An Indian importer sourcing from West Africa doesn't want to deal with five different vendors for farm management, quality testing, warehousing, customs clearance, and freight forwarding. They want a single, trusted infrastructure platform that guarantees delivery to spec. By unifying precision farm protocols, buyer contracting, quality assurance, logistics, and digital payments into one seamless network, integrated agritech platforms remove the friction across the entire value chain. Platforms that successfully bridge African production with major global demand centers, like India, will define the future of global food trade.  -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4608/why-crop-breeding-is-moving-from-resistance-to-immune-restoration.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4608/why-crop-breeding-is-moving-from-resistance-to-immune-restoration.html Mon, 07 Sep 2026 12:28:09 +0530 Disease resistance in agriculture has long been defined by an evolutionary arms race as breeders introduce resistance, pathogens adapt, and the cycle begins again. In this exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Dr. Cian Duggan, Co-founder of Resurrect Bio, argues that the next breakthrough may come from understanding and restoring the plant immune mechanisms that pathogens have already learned to overcome. He explains how Resurrect Bio’s combination of computational discovery, AI-assisted prioritisation and wet-lab validation seeks to move disease resistance beyond broad screening towards the identification of causal, actionable traits. With spinach downy mildew as the immediate focus of its collaboration with Bejo, the approach offers a test case for whether mechanism-led trait discovery can produce resistance that is more durable and commercially relevant. Duggan also examines how climate-driven disease pressure could elevate crop immunity from a specialised breeding objective to a strategic pillar of global food security. Looking ahead, he envisions a more integrated crop-protection model in which genetics, biology, chemistry, digital tools and precision breeding converge to build resilience into crops rather than continually reacting to disease after it emerges. For decades, the industry has been engaged in an arms race with pathogens, with resistance genes emerging and then quickly becoming obsolete. What convinces you that this partnership can alter that cycle rather than merely delay it? The simple fact is that pathogens will continue to evolve to counter resistance genes. What makes this partnership with Bejo different is that it brings Resurrect Bio’s immune-restoration approach into a breeding context shaped by Bejo’s crop expertise and real-world understanding of disease pressure. Instead of simply introducing or selecting another resistance gene and waiting for it to be overcome by the pathogens, Resurrect Bio identifies where plant immune systems have already been defeated by pathogens and looks for ways to restore or strengthen those immune functions. In spinach, the collaboration with Bejo will apply this targeted trait discovery approach to identify disease resistance mechanisms that could support more resilient varieties. Resurrect Bio’s platform combines computational discovery, AI-assisted prioritisation and wet-lab validation to identify causal resistance targets rather than relying only on broad screening. This gives the teams developing new varieties of spinach a clearer view of how the crop and the pathogen interact with each other, how resistance breaks down crops' immune systems and how immune systems can fight back against the pathogens. As climate change accelerates the evolution and spread of crop diseases, do you foresee disease resistance becoming as strategically important to food security as yield enhancement once was? Absolutely. As climate change accelerates the spread and evolution of crop diseases, disease resistance will become just as strategically important to food security as yield enhancement has been historically. Yield potential only matters if crops can withstand the disease pressures they face in the field. As pathogens move into new regions and place greater pressure on existing resistance traits, varieties that perform well today may become vulnerable faster than expected. This is especially relevant in crops like spinach, where multiple growing cycles each year increase pressure on resistance durability. For seed companies, the challenge is to develop higher-performing varieties, whilst also ensuring reliable production in the face of evolving disease. The next phase of crop improvement needs to bring yield, quality and resilience closer together, with stronger and more durable disease resistance at its core. The seed industry has traditionally relied on incremental breeding gains. Does targeted trait discovery represent a paradigm shift in how crop innovation will be conducted over the next decade? We think targeted trait discovery has the potential to change how crop innovation is conducted, particularly for disease resistance. Traditional breeding will always be essential, but it relies on screening large populations and selecting for incremental gains. That approach can work well, but it’s not always fast enough when pathogens are evolving quickly, accelerated for example by climate change, or when the causal resistance mechanism is not well understood. Targeted trait discovery approaches the problem from the opposite direction. Instead of asking only which plants perform best, it asks why disease resistance works, why disease resistance fails or breaks down and which specific mechanisms can be strengthened or restored. This gives breeders more actionable targets and shortens the path from discovery to implementation. We see this as complementary to seed companies’ existing breeding expertise. The paradigm shift is not that breeding goes away, but that it becomes more informed by molecular understanding of interactions between plants and pathogens. Over the next few years, we expect crop innovation to become more targeted, more mechanistic and more closely integrated with precision breeding approaches. This is especially important for developing disease resistance, where durability, speed and biological understanding are becoming critical. The world loses a significant portion of its agricultural output to pests and diseases each year, yet crop immunity rarely commands the same attention as productivity or sustainability. Why has the economic cost of plant disease remained so underappreciated? The economic cost of plant disease is fragmented, variable and difficult to see in one place. Crop yield is easy to communicate and measure. Sustainability has become a clear strategic and regulatory priority. Disease, by contrast, is often treated as a technical problem within individual crops, regions or growing seasons. Losses may appear as lower yields, reduced quality, increased necessity of chemical usage, shorter variety lifetimes or disruptive supply rather than a single visible cost. There is also a tendency to focus on disease only once resistance breaks down or an outbreak becomes severe. By that point, the economic impact has already been felt by growers, breeders and supply chains. The preventative value of strong crop immunity is harder to capture because success often means that the loss never happens. As pathogens evolve and spread, disease resistance is becoming a core part of productivity and sustainability, not a separate issue. Stronger crop immunity protects yield, reduces reliance on chemical inputs and supports more stable production. In that sense, the cost of plant disease is not only what is lost today, but also the resilience the industry needs to build for the future. If successful, could technologies that strengthen innate plant immunity fundamentally reduce agriculture's dependence on chemical crop protection products and what would that mean for the future of the agrochemical industry? Where disease resistance can be made stronger, more durable and easier to integrate into breeding pipelines, strengthening plant immunity could reduce agriculture's reliance on chemical crop protection. However, we do not see technologies like ours as replacing crop protection products entirely. Continued evolution of pathogens and increasing unpredictability of growing conditions means that agricultural producers will need a multi-layered approach to fighting pathogens The opportunity is to shift more of the burden from chemical intervention towards built-in crop resilience. For the agrochemical industry, that could mean a changing role rather than a disappearing one. Future crop protection strategies are likely to be more integrated, combining genetics, breeding, biology, chemistry and digital decision-making. Companies that successfully adapt to this shift will play a central role in helping growers protect crops with fewer inputs that are used more precisely and more sustainably. Spinach downy mildew is the immediate target, but is the larger ambition to build a platform that can deliver durable disease resistance across multiple crops and geographies? What are the biggest scientific hurdles to achieving that vision? Our platform is designed to be broadly applicable because many of the principles of plant immunity apply to all crops. The aim is to identify where resistance has been defeated, understand the crop-pathogen interaction at a molecular level and design ways to restore or strengthen immune functions. The biggest scientific hurdles are biological complexity and validation. Every crop-pathogen system is different and resistance can break down through different mechanisms. In each case, we must identify the right causal targets, understand how the pathogen is suppressing or evading plant immune systems and validate that the traits are strong, durable and relevant to commercial needs. Spinach downy mildew is the immediate focus of this partnership with Bejo, but the broader ambition for Resurrect Bio is to develop disease resistance traits across multiple crops, pathogens and markets. Investors are increasingly backing agricultural biotechnology, as evidenced by your recent Series A raise. What metrics should the market use to distinguish genuinely transformative ag-biotech platforms from technologies that are merely incremental? The market should look beyond whether a platform sounds novel and ask whether it can actually create traits that seed companies can use and benefit from. Key metrics include speed, validation, applicability and commercial relevance. Can the platform identify causal targets rather than broad associations? Can it move from prediction to functional wet lab validation? Can it deliver actionable traits and timelines that match breeding programmes? Can those traits be implemented through existing seed company pipelines? Durability should also be central. In disease resistance, an incremental improvement may help for a season. A transformative platform should understand why resistance breaks down and use that knowledge to design much longer-lasting solutions. Looking ten years ahead, do you envision a future in which seed companies compete not just on genetics and yield, but on their ability to engineer resilient crop immune systems capable of adapting to an increasingly volatile climate? Yes, over the next decade, we expect resilience to become a major basis for competition in the seed industry. Yield will remain critical, but only if crops can withstand disease pressure in the field. The strongest companies will be those able to understand plant-pathogen interactions and develop more durable immune systems for increasingly volatile growing conditions. -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/reports-white-papers/91/4598/as-el-nio-builds-asia-rethinks-how-it-grows-food.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/reports-white-papers/91/4598/as-el-nio-builds-asia-rethinks-how-it-grows-food.html Thu, 03 Sep 2026 14:50:57 +0530 A serious climate threat is building for global agriculture. The World Meteorological Organization expects a strong El Niño to develop, raising the risk of widespread disruption through 2026 and 2027. Four decades of satellite data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization point to South and Southeast Asia as a major risk zone, with a drought corridor stretching from Pakistan and India to Indonesia and the Philippines. The stakes are high. The region produces more than 90 per cent of the world’s rice and a large share of farmed seafood. Even a modest fall in monsoon rainfall during critical growing periods could therefore hit supplies and push food prices higher. The damage would not be limited to crops. Prolonged drought and extreme heat could cut yields, weaken pastures, raise livestock feed costs and disrupt coastal fisheries that millions depend on for food and livelihoods. These risks are unfolding against a backdrop of record global temperatures, persistent inflation and geopolitical tensions. Developing countries are particularly vulnerable, accounting for more than 80 per cent of drought-related agricultural losses while often lacking reliable irrigation, insurance and financial safety nets. The experience of the 2015–2016 El Niño shows why waiting for a crisis is a costly strategy. More than 60 million people were put at risk and international aid requirements reached $5 billion. The lesson is straightforward: acting before a drought hits is cheaper and more effective than responding after crops and livelihoods have already been damaged. For Asia, the next El Niño should be treated as a test of preparedness. Investments in drought-tolerant seeds, satellite-based early warning systems, efficient irrigation, climate insurance and targeted financial support can help farmers absorb the immediate impact. More importantly, they can strengthen food systems against the increasingly unpredictable climate risks ahead. Understanding El Niño and Why Asia Must Prepare A major climate threat is taking shape over the equatorial Pacific, with serious implications for agriculture across Asia. El Niño, along with its cooler counterpart La Niña, is one of the main drivers of year-to-year changes in global weather. Its effects are felt far beyond the Pacific, altering monsoon patterns and rainfall across Asia—from delayed rains in the Indian subcontinent to dry conditions in parts of Southeast Asia, falling reservoir levels and volatile agricultural markets. For Asia, El Niño is not just a weather event. The region produces more than 90 per cent of the world’s rice, leads global palm oil and aquaculture production, and is a major exporter of natural rubber, coffee, spices, tea and tropical fruits. Even a modest change in seasonal rainfall can therefore affect supplies, push up prices and add to food inflation in markets around the world. The expected 2026–27 El Niño comes at a difficult time. Global temperatures remain high, freshwater resources are under pressure, geopolitical tensions continue to disrupt trade, and farmers are dealing with rising input costs. These pressures can magnify the impact of a climate shock, leaving farmers and food markets with less room to cope. A Pattern Asia Knows Too Well History offers a clear warning. Major El Niño events have repeatedly caused serious damage to agriculture across Asia, exposing weaknesses in water management, crop insurance and disaster preparedness. During the 1997–98 El Niño, severe drought hit Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and the Philippines, damaging crops during critical growing periods. Indonesia also faced massive forest and peatland fires, creating widespread haze, disrupting transport and affecting communities and farms across Southeast Asia. The 2015–16 El Niño was even more damaging. India experienced two consecutive years of weak monsoons, affecting millions of hectares of rain-fed crops, including pulses, oilseeds and coarse grains. Across Southeast Asia, water shortages reduced rice and palm oil production and led governments to impose tighter irrigation controls. Worldwide, the event put more than 60 million people at risk across 23 countries and required more than $5 billion in emergency humanitarian aid. The 2023–24 El Niño showed that the effects can vary sharply from one region to another. A strong Indian Ocean Dipole added to rainfall shortages across the Indo-Pacific, with drought affecting Indonesia, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and the Philippines. In Timor-Leste, prolonged drought left nearly 360,000 people—more than 27 per cent of the population—facing severe food insecurity. In Mongolia, an unusually dry summer followed by a harsh winter, known as a dzud, killed more than 5.9 million livestock. These events show how quickly El Niño can move from a weather problem to a food, water and economic problem. Why the 2026–27 Outlook Matters The latest outlook is particularly worrying because of the expected strength and duration of the event. Monitoring by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows rising sea-surface temperatures across the central and eastern equatorial Pacific, along with weaker trade winds and stronger rainfall activity over the central Pacific. Current projections put the probability of El Niño conditions continuing into early spring 2027 at 97 per cent. Forecasters also estimate an 81 per cent chance that the event will reach “very strong” intensity between October and December 2026. If that happens, it would rank among the strongest El Niño events recorded since modern observations began in 1950. The Food and Agriculture Organization’s Agricultural Stress Index System, based on 41 years of satellite data, has identified a broad drought corridor across South and Southeast Asia. It includes India, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia and Timor-Leste—many of the region’s key agricultural economies. Beyond Rainfall: The Wider Impact The effects of a strong El Niño will extend beyond a shortage of rain. Lower soil moisture can delay planting and reduce yields, particularly in rain-fed farming areas. Rice, corn and sugarcane are vulnerable at critical stages such as germination, flowering and grain filling. Extreme heat can further reduce crop yields. Livestock will also come under pressure. High temperatures can reduce feed intake, milk production and fertility, while shortages of water and fodder can increase costs. Aquaculture faces its own risks as warmer water and lower oxygen levels can affect fish breeding and survival. Changing monsoon patterns add to the uncertainty. Later monsoon arrivals, longer dry spells and sudden heavy rains are making traditional planting calendars less reliable. Recent events also show that El Niño does not always produce the same result in every country. During 2023–24, for example, Afghanistan received only 45 to 60 per cent of its average rainfall despite typically seeing higher rainfall during El Niño years. For farmers, this means that past weather patterns can no longer be relied on as a guide on their own. The Cost of Waiting Low- and middle-income countries account for more than 80 per cent of drought-related agricultural losses worldwide. For small farmers, a failed harvest can mean lost income, rising debt, livestock sales and less food for their families. Governments, meanwhile, may have to shift money from development programmes to food imports and emergency relief. The experience of recent years also shows that warnings are useful only when farmers and governments have time and resources to act. Programmes led by the Food and Agriculture Organization in Timor-Leste, Cambodia, Vietnam and the Philippines have used measures such as drought-tolerant seeds, micro-irrigation, livestock support and local weather advisories before severe conditions arrive. The lesson is simple: preparing before a drought is far cheaper than dealing with its consequences afterwards. For Asia, the 2026–27 El Niño will be a test of how well governments, businesses and farmers can turn an early warning into timely action. The Climate Outlook for Asia: Mapping Agricultural Risk Across the Region The first warning rarely comes with a failed harvest. A rise in sea-surface temperatures in the equatorial Pacific can alter atmospheric circulation, weaken trade winds and shift rainfall patterns across continents. What begins as an oceanic anomaly can determine whether reservoirs fill or run dry, crops survive or fail, and food markets remain stable or turn volatile. That chain reaction is already drawing attention across Asia. Governments are monitoring Pacific temperatures alongside domestic crop conditions, traders are revising supply forecasts, irrigation authorities are reviewing reservoir levels and agricultural ministries are updating drought plans. The emerging 2026–27 El Niño is no longer seen simply as a seasonal climate cycle. For a region that produces much of the world's staple food and supports nearly two billion livelihoods linked directly or indirectly to agriculture, it is an economic risk. The concern is greater this time because the event is developing against a very different climate backdrop. Previous El Niño events occurred in a climate with greater natural buffers. Today, global temperatures remain at record levels, freshwater reserves are under pressure and groundwater in parts of South and Southeast Asia has been heavily depleted by years of irrigation. Reservoirs are recovering more slowly after successive dry seasons, while more frequent and intense heatwaves are increasing water loss from soils. Many farming regions are therefore entering the season with less room for error. The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports that ocean-atmosphere coupling across the equatorial Pacific is strengthening. Current projections put the probability of El Niño conditions continuing into early 2027 at 97 per cent, with an 81 per cent chance of “very strong” intensity between October and December 2026. But the strength of El Niño alone will not determine the agricultural impact. The World Meteorological Organization says natural climate cycles are increasingly interacting with long-term global warming. Higher temperatures increase crop water requirements, accelerate soil moisture loss and add heat stress during sensitive stages such as flowering and grain filling. The Food and Agriculture Organization’s Agricultural Stress Index System, based on more than four decades of satellite observations, has identified a broad agricultural drought corridor stretching from the Indo-Gangetic plains through mainland Southeast Asia and into the Indonesian archipelago. More than 80 per cent of global drought-related agricultural losses occur in low- and middle-income countries, where rain-fed farming remains widespread and farmers often have fewer options to cope. India: The Monsoon Still Sets the Tone In India, the monsoon continues to have consequences far beyond the farm. Agriculture contributes less than one-fifth of Gross Value Added but remains the main livelihood for more than 40 per cent of the workforce. Nearly half of cultivated land still depends on seasonal rainfall despite decades of investment in irrigation. The key concern is not simply how much rain arrives, but when it arrives. A delayed monsoon, long dry spells in June and July, followed by intense bursts of rain can cause more damage than a season of evenly distributed below-normal rainfall. Drought years such as 1982, 1987, 2002, 2009 and 2015–16 have shown the link between strong El Niño events and weaker production of rice, pulses, oilseeds and coarse cereals. Irrigation is also becoming less reliable. Groundwater levels continue to fall in states such as Punjab and Haryana, while rain-fed regions of Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand and Odisha remain exposed to rainfall swings. The effects do not stop at India’s borders. As a major exporter of rice, sugar, cotton, spices and horticultural products, any significant fall in Indian production can tighten global supplies and add to food inflation across importing markets. Sri Lanka: A Question of Water In Sri Lanka, the focus is increasingly on water storage. Reservoir managers are assessing whether supplies will be sufficient for the Maha cultivation season if rainfall weakens. Water has to be balanced between paddy, hydropower, urban consumption and export-oriented crops such as tea. Tea illustrates the wider challenge. Prolonged moisture stress can reduce leaf growth, increase production costs and affect quality, weakening export competitiveness. Coconut and rubber plantations face similar pressures, while lower reservoir inflows threaten irrigation in the Dry Zone, a major rice-growing area. Vietnam: When Drought Brings Salt In Vietnam’s Mekong Delta, lower rainfall and river flows during El Niño can allow seawater to move further inland, affecting irrigation canals, rice fields, fruit orchards and shrimp farms. The drought and salinity intrusion of 2015–16 remains a major reference point, prompting authorities to strengthen salinity monitoring and review irrigation plans ahead of dry periods. Vietnam’s coffee industry also depends heavily on adequate soil moisture during flowering, while aquaculture requires reliable freshwater supplies. As a major exporter of rice and coffee, disruptions in Vietnam can quickly affect international markets. Thailand: Watching the ReservoirsIn Thailand, reservoir storage is becoming as important as rainfall forecasts. Authorities are monitoring inflows into major reservoirs in the Chao Phraya Basin because storage levels determine how much water can be released for rice and sugarcane. Agriculture is also competing with manufacturing, tourism and growing cities for the same limited water resources. Maintaining Thailand’s position as a leading rice exporter will therefore depend increasingly on how effectively available water is managed. Philippines: Drought Meets Import Dependence For the Philippines, drought is emerging alongside the country’s familiar exposure to typhoons. Authorities are reviewing irrigation schedules, expanding seasonal advisories and strengthening crop insurance as El Niño conditions strengthen. The country’s dependence on imported rice adds another layer of concern. If domestic production falls at the same time that exports from India, Vietnam and Thailand tighten, food prices could rise sharply and put further pressure on government procurement. Across Asia, El Niño is therefore no longer just about rainfall. Warmer temperatures, depleted groundwater, lower river flows, stressed reservoirs and changing monsoon patterns are interacting to put greater pressure on agriculture. The challenge is increasingly about how quickly governments, businesses and farmers can respond to these changes. Better water management, stronger crop protection, more reliable weather information and timely support for farmers will matter as much as the rainfall itself. The 2026–27 El Niño could become a major test of Asia’s ability to prepare before a climate event turns into a food supply crisis. East Asia: Resilience Through Technology, but Climate Risks Continue to Mount If South and Southeast Asia are bracing for less rain, East Asia faces a different test: can technology keep agriculture ahead of a warming climate? China, Japan and South Korea have spent decades building some of Asia’s most sophisticated agricultural systems—irrigation networks, satellite monitoring, seasonal forecasting, automated farms and increasingly AI-driven production. That investment has bought them an advantage. But rising temperatures are beginning to test how far that advantage can go. China is at the centre of that test. Feeding nearly one-fifth of the world's population with less than one-tenth of its arable land has made food security a national priority. As El Niño develops, seasonal forecasts are feeding into crop planning, reservoir management and drought preparations. In the north, provinces such as Henan, Hebei, Shanxi and Inner Mongolia could face higher temperatures and greater irrigation demand, putting wheat and maize under pressure. In the south, where rice production depends heavily on monsoon rainfall and river flows, the concern is less predictable: longer dry spells could be followed by intense rainfall. China has seen the consequences before. The 2022 drought in the Yangtze River basin sent river levels sharply lower, cut hydropower generation and put irrigation and farm production under pressure. It was a warning that even an extensive water infrastructure network has limits when heat and water shortages arrive together. The response has been massive. China is expanding high-standard farmland, precision irrigation, satellite crop monitoring, AI-based farm management and climate-resilient seed breeding. Digital platforms are giving farmers faster access to weather forecasts, pest alerts and irrigation advice. But scale remains the country's biggest vulnerability. Even a modest fall in grain production can push up imports of maize, soybeans and feed grains—and send ripples through global commodity markets. Japan faces a different problem. Water shortages are rarely the main threat. Heat is. Decades of investment in irrigation and meteorological forecasting have helped shield Japanese agriculture from widespread drought losses. But higher temperatures are increasingly affecting what farmers earn from what they grow. Rice is the clearest example. Heat during grain filling can leave harvest volumes largely intact while producing chalkier, lower-quality kernels that fetch lower prices. In horticulture, apples, grapes, peaches and citrus face growing risks from sunburn, irregular flowering and shorter growing cycles. Livestock producers, meanwhile, are paying more to keep animals cool as heatwaves become more frequent. Japan is turning to technology again. Robotics are helping offset an ageing farm workforce, AI is being used to improve irrigation decisions, and heat-tolerant varieties are moving from research into commercial production. Its Green Food System Strategy places climate adaptation firmly within food security policy—a logical priority for a country that imports a large share of its food and feed. South Korea is following much the same path. Smart greenhouses, automated irrigation, environmental sensors and digital farm platforms have reduced agriculture's dependence on favourable weather. But the cost of maintaining that protection is rising. El Niño years are generally associated with warmer summers and greater rainfall variability in South Korea. That means higher irrigation demand and greater heat stress for rice, vegetables and fruit. The challenge is increasingly one of efficiency: how to manage limited water as evaporation rises and traditional growing seasons become less predictable. Smart greenhouses, AI-based pest monitoring, automated irrigation and precision farming are becoming central to that effort. Agricultural insurance is expanding alongside them, reflecting a simple reality: protecting farms from climate risk now requires both technology and financial protection. China, Japan and South Korea have something many other parts of Asia lack—decades of investment in infrastructure, science and technology. That investment can reduce the damage from drought, heat and erratic weather. But it cannot stop temperatures from rising. That is the real test facing East Asian agriculture. The question is no longer simply whether crops can survive a dry season. It is whether farmers can maintain yield, quality and profitability as extreme heat becomes a more permanent feature of the growing season. Technology can buy time. It cannot change the climate. Government Readiness Across Asia: Are Countries Prepared for the Next El Niño? If previous El Niño events were measured by crop losses, the 2026–27 episode may be judged by something else: how quickly governments act before losses occur. Across Asia, preparedness is moving upstream. Meteorological agencies are issuing seasonal forecasts months ahead, irrigation authorities are reviewing reservoir plans, and governments are using climate data to guide sowing, water allocation and farm support. The challenge is no longer predicting El Niño, but turning forecasts into timely decisions. The shift comes from experience. The 1997–98 and 2015–16 El Niño events exposed the vulnerability of Asian agriculture, while 2023–24 showed how climate shocks can hit harder when groundwater is depleted, temperatures are higher and rainfall is less predictable. Today, preparedness starts well before drought appears on the ground. India offers one of the clearest examples. As El Niño strengthens, agencies are tracking the monsoon at increasingly local levels. The India Meteorological Department is expanding weather forecasts and farm advisories through mobile apps, SMS and digital platforms, linking them to decisions on sowing, irrigation and fertiliser use. The Digital Agriculture Mission is bringing together satellite data, artificial intelligence and digital farm databases, while the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana provides a major financial buffer against weather-related losses. But technology has limits. Nearly half of India's cultivated land remains rain-dependent, groundwater depletion threatens irrigation in several states, and fragmented holdings can restrict access to digital services. The problem is no longer simply producing better forecasts; it is getting the right information to farmers early enough for them to act. China has taken preparedness to another scale. Food security drives major investment in satellite monitoring, smart irrigation, high-standard farmland, artificial intelligence and climate-resilient seeds. Remote sensing, drones, data analytics and predictive models allow authorities to track crop conditions in near real time, while agricultural insurance is expanding across the country's vast farm economy. Japan has taken a different route. Strong irrigation networks, mechanisation and agricultural insurance have reduced exposure to seasonal climate swings. The focus is now shifting towards heat, with robotics, controlled-environment farming, precision agriculture and climate-resilient varieties central to its Green Food System Strategy. South Korea is following a similar path. Smart greenhouses, sensor-based irrigation, AI pest monitoring and digital water management are helping farmers prepare for changing weather rather than simply respond to drought after it arrives. Insurance and real-time climate monitoring are expanding alongside these systems. Further south, countries are adapting with fewer resources but growing urgency. Vietnam has used repeated drought and saltwater intrusion in the Mekong Delta to reshape agricultural planning. Salinity monitoring, modernised irrigation and climate-resilient rice varieties are being strengthened, while seasonal forecasts are increasingly linked to planting decisions. Indonesia is taking a similar preventive approach after the severe El Niño episodes of 2015–16 and 2023–24. Seasonal forecasts are being incorporated into cropping decisions, alongside investments in reservoirs, irrigation and drought-tolerant rice. But implementation remains uneven across an archipelago of more than 17,000 islands. In Thailand, the central concern remains water. Reservoir management, irrigation scheduling and seasonal forecasts are being coordinated to balance agriculture with rising urban and industrial demand. Satellite drought monitoring, precision farming and digital advisories are also expanding, although insurance remains concentrated among rice growers. Malaysia is focusing on its plantation economy, using remote sensing, drones, satellite monitoring and precision management to protect palm oil and rubber production. Singapore, meanwhile, is taking a different approach altogether. With little conventional farmland, it is turning itself into a laboratory for vertical farming, controlled-environment agriculture and AI under its “30 by 30” strategy—and increasingly exporting technology and expertise rather than crops. The broader shift is clear. Climate preparedness is no longer confined to weather agencies. It now involves agriculture, water, finance, technology and rural development. But the biggest gap remains between what science can predict and what farmers can actually do with that information. Across much of Asia, millions of smallholders still depend on rainfall, insurance coverage remains limited and digital services struggle to reach remote communities. The technology is advancing. The question is whether the delivery systems can move fast enough. Investment Opportunities During Climate Adaptation: Why Climate Resilience Is Becoming Asia's Biggest Agritech Investment Theme Every major climate event creates winners and losers, and the 2026–27 El Niño is unlikely to be different. But this time, the biggest commercial opportunity may not be in commodity speculation. It may lie in the technologies helping agriculture cope with a hotter, drier and less predictable climate. Across Asia, adaptation is moving from the margins of sustainability debates to the centre of investment strategy. For governments, it is increasingly tied to food security. For agribusinesses, it means protecting supply chains from repeated weather shocks. For investors, it is opening one of agriculture’s fastest-growing markets. The scale of the opportunity is significant. The World Bank estimates that developing economies will need $215 billion to $387 billion a year by 2030 to adapt to climate change. Agriculture is at the heart of that spending. Producing more food is no longer enough; farmers must produce it with less water, under greater heat and amid more erratic weather. That shift is already influencing agritech investment. AgFunder’s Global AgriFoodTech Investment Reports point to continued interest in biological inputs, precision agriculture, digital farm management, water technologies and climate information. The focus is gradually moving beyond technologies designed simply to raise yields toward tools that can reduce losses and make production more predictable. Biologicals are one example. Biological crop protection products, microbial biofertilizers and biostimulants are moving from niche products into mainstream farm inputs across Asia. They can improve soil health, support root development and help crops cope with drought, salinity and heat. India, China and Southeast Asian markets are encouraging their use as they seek to reduce dependence on synthetic fertilizers. For investors, the attraction lies in expanding markets, regulatory support and growing farmer acceptance. Artificial intelligence is changing farm decisions in parallel. Platforms that combine satellite imagery, local weather forecasts, soil-moisture data and crop models can help farmers decide when to irrigate, fertilize or apply crop protection products. Governments are also using these tools. India’s Digital Agriculture Mission, China’s smart-farming programmes and Singapore’s agri-food initiatives are bringing digital information closer to farmers. For technology companies, the appeal is scale: software can reach large rural markets without a matching increase in operating costs. But water remains the biggest constraint. Agriculture accounts for about 70 percent of global freshwater withdrawals, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization. As drought becomes more frequent, irrigation efficiency is becoming a critical investment area. Drip irrigation, micro-sprinklers, automated pumps, soil-moisture sensors and digitally controlled irrigation systems are moving beyond yield improvement to become essential infrastructure. India and China are expanding micro-irrigation investment, while experience from Israel and Australia shows how better water management can reduce consumption without necessarily cutting yields. Every litre saved has an economic value. The same logic is changing the seed business. Maximum yield has long been the main selling point for commercial varieties. Increasingly, farmers will also pay for yield that holds up under heat, drought, flooding and salinity. Public research institutions and private breeders are accelerating work on climate-tolerant rice, wheat and maize. Partnerships involving organisations such as the International Rice Research Institute are helping shorten breeding cycles and move new varieties towards farmers faster. As rainfall patterns become less reliable, genetics is becoming one of agriculture’s first lines of defence. Adaptation is also creating new revenue streams in rural economies. Conservation tillage, agroforestry, cover crops and better nutrient management can improve soil moisture and reduce erosion while storing carbon. Agricultural carbon markets in Asia remain fragmented, but corporate demand is growing as food companies look for ways to reduce emissions across their supply chains. The investment opportunity extends beyond farms. Governments and institutional investors are putting money into groundwater mapping, wastewater recycling, desalination, digital water monitoring and automated allocation systems. Singapore has shown how water engineering can address structural scarcity, while similar approaches are beginning to shape infrastructure planning elsewhere in South and Southeast Asia. Water technology is increasingly being treated as agricultural infrastructure rather than an environmental cost. Controlled-environment agriculture offers another route to reduce exposure to weather. Vertical farms, hydroponics, aeroponics and automated greenhouses are expanding across East Asia. These systems reduce dependence on rainfall, can sharply lower water use and provide tighter control over pests and growing conditions. Singapore has made indoor farming a key part of its “30 by 30” food strategy, while Japan, South Korea and China are investing in commercial greenhouse production. High capital costs remain a hurdle, but falling equipment prices and greater climate volatility are improving the case for high-value crops. Labour shortages are adding another layer to the technology race. Ageing farm populations, rising rural wages and shorter planting windows are driving demand for autonomous tractors, robotic harvesters, drones and computer-vision systems. Japan and South Korea remain leaders in agricultural robotics, but adoption is spreading across China and Southeast Asia. When weather windows narrow, automation can help farms complete critical operations faster. Perhaps the most valuable input, however, is information. As weather patterns become harder to predict, climate intelligence is becoming an increasingly important agricultural service. Local forecasting platforms can combine satellite data, machine learning and weather models to provide more precise farm advisories. The same information is valuable to traders, insurers, banks, food companies and logistics operators managing supply and price risks. Weather data is moving from a specialist service into core infrastructure for the food economy. Behind these technologies is the wider digitisation of agriculture. Farm-management platforms are bringing weather, satellite imagery, soil data, finances and market information into a single system. Each tool addresses a different problem; together, they are changing where agricultural capital is going. The next investment cycle is likely to be less about producing more at any cost and more about reducing the cost of uncertainty. For Asia, where climate risks are rising alongside food demand, that shift could be significant. The agritech companies that matter most in the coming decade may be those that help farmers use less water, withstand harsher weather and keep production moving when conditions turn against them. Adaptation is no longer just an environmental priority. It is becoming an investment market in its own right. The Road Ahead: Building an Agricultural System That Can Withstand the Next Climate Shock If the 2026–27 El Niño proves anything, it is that Asia can no longer treat climate shocks as temporary disruptions. They are becoming structural features of agricultural production, shaping planting decisions, irrigation schedules, commodity prices, food inflation and export competitiveness. The question is no longer whether another major climate event will arrive, but whether the region can adapt quickly enough before it does. There are reasons for cautious optimism. Governments have learned hard lessons from the droughts of 1997–98, 2015–16 and 2023–24, while meteorological agencies now provide increasingly reliable seasonal forecasts. But predictions alone do not save harvests. Their value depends on institutional follow-through: Can irrigation departments adjust reservoir operations before shortages emerge? Can extension officers reach farmers before sowing rather than after crops begin to fail? Can financial institutions deliver emergency credit quickly enough for smallholders to invest in drought-tolerant seeds or micro-irrigation? Increasingly, the difference between resilience and crisis lies not in predicting climate risks, but in acting on them. That requires a more integrated approach to agricultural governance. Climate adaptation can no longer remain the responsibility of meteorological agencies or environment ministries alone. It must be embedded across agriculture, water resources, rural development, finance and infrastructure planning. Reservoir management, groundwater regulation, crop insurance, digital extension and agricultural research are interconnected elements of a broader resilience strategy. Countries that integrate them effectively will be better positioned to shield producers and consumers from rising weather volatility. Water will be central to that transition. Decades of excessive groundwater extraction have weakened Asia’s buffer against dry years. Future investment must therefore focus not only on expanding irrigation, but on improving water productivity. Micro-irrigation, watershed restoration, managed aquifer recharge, rainwater harvesting and digital water accounting are becoming as important to agricultural policy as fertilizer subsidies and price support. Countries that manage water strategically rather than reactively will gain a growing competitive advantage. The private sector has an equally important role. For agribusinesses, climate resilience is shifting from a sustainability initiative to a core commercial imperative. The next generation of climate-smart agriculture may depend less on breakthrough technologies than on scaling solutions that already work: drip irrigation, alternate wetting and drying in rice, soil-health restoration, conservation agriculture, short-duration varieties, precision nutrient management and mobile advisory networks. The challenge is no longer proving their effectiveness, but making them accessible and financially viable for Asia’s millions of smallholders. Capital allocation will be critical. Climate adaptation is emerging as a major investment theme in agriculture, with capital moving toward farm-management AI, microbial inputs, precision irrigation, resilient seed genetics, weather analytics and digital financial tools. Increasingly, investors recognise that the next wave of agricultural innovation will be defined not by maximising yields under ideal conditions, but by sustaining productivity under volatile ones. The strongest opportunity may lie at the intersection of climate resilience and rural finance. Weather-indexed insurance, satellite-based risk assessment, digital lending and climate analytics are changing how agricultural risk is assessed and priced. For banks and insurers, real-time climate intelligence is becoming as important as credit histories and collateral. The same technologies helping farmers manage drought are enabling financial institutions to deploy capital more efficiently and with lower risk. The convergence of public policy, private capital and technology is creating a new agricultural economy in which resilience itself becomes a competitive advantage. Countries that can produce food reliably despite rising temperatures and erratic rainfall will strengthen their positions in global trade. Agribusinesses that de-risk supply chains will become more attractive to institutional investors, while farmers adopting climate-smart practices can build more profitable and shock-resistant operations. Ultimately, that is the defining lesson of the 2026–27 El Niño. Climate itself is no longer the only unknown. Science can provide months of advance warning, and technology offers an expanding range of solutions. The real test is whether governments can turn forecasts into action, investors can turn capital into execution, and innovators can turn technology into resilience at scale. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4540/fleet-strategy-shifts-from-cost-control-to-value-creation.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4540/fleet-strategy-shifts-from-cost-control-to-value-creation.html Wed, 26 Aug 2026 11:22:05 +0530 Mobility is no longer a back-end function measured simply by kilometres travelled or fuel consumed; it is increasingly becoming a strategic variable shaping cost, resilience, sustainability and workforce productivity. In a business environment marked by volatile energy prices, evolving regulations and shifting employee expectations, the real challenge lies in building mobility systems that can adapt rather than merely endure. The future, therefore, belongs not to the lowest-cost fleet, but to the smartest one—where data, technology and strategic planning continuously reshape decisions. Telematics, predictive analytics, powertrain diversification and flexible fleet models are transforming vehicles from depreciating assets into sources of operational intelligence. For sectors such as agriculture and agrochemicals, where mobility remains integral to reaching dispersed markets and supporting field teams, this transition carries particular strategic significance. In this exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Suvajit Karmakar, Country Managing Director, India & Asia Sub-Regional Director, Ayvens, examines how organisations can move beyond conventional fleet management towards a more integrated approach that balances Total Mobility Cost, employee experience, sustainability and business agility. His central argument is compelling: the next generation of successful mobility programmes will emerge when fleet management is treated not as an operational necessity, but as a strategic lever for long-term business value. Fuel prices have become one of the most unpredictable variables impacting business mobility costs. How should organisations rethink their fleet and mobility strategies in an era where fuel volatility is becoming a structural reality? With the increasing concerns related to oil availability and price volatility, organisations must start evaluating their car and mobility policies. The strongest hedge against fuel volatility is reducing dependence on fossil fuels by switching to more cost-efficient and sustainable options. Right from evaluating their current fleet mix to using vehicle data via telematics to optimise usage, companies can redefine the way they run their business operations. Transitioning from internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles to a low emission fleet mix of Hybrids, CNGs and BEVs can not only bring down the reliance on fossil fuels but also make the fuel bills lighter. Moreover, adopting a portfolio approach instead of a single-fuel strategy helps with diversification, thereby reducing exposure to a single energy source. Using Telematics solutions, one of the world's largest agrochemical companies with extensive rural coverage, optimised their territory coverage and travel efficiency for field-sales and technical teams depending heavily on vehicle mobility. In short, selecting the most appropriate vehicle, diversified energy sources, electrification, and data-driven fleet management are becoming business resilience strategies rather than merely sustainability initiatives. Beyond fuel costs, what fleet management strategies can organisations adopt to improve overall fleet efficiency and optimise Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)? Many organisations still measure success using only the capital deployed for vehicle purchase and fuel expenditure. A better metric is: Total Mobility Cost (TMC) = actual depreciation from usage + Fuel/Energy + Maintenance + Downtime + Insurance + Driver Productivity + Carbon Cost This often reveals that a vehicle with a higher acquisition cost may have substantially lower lifecycle costs. Fuel is just one component of Total Cost of Ownership. Organisations can unlock greater value by: Using the Fleet Rightsizing approach - optimal number and type of vehicles, removing underutilised or redundant vehicle as well as eliminating inefficient vehicles from the fleet - organisations can substantially improve efficiency and bring down their overall mobility spends. Its not only choosing the right vehicle, it’s also about choosing the right tenure and KMS for the replacing the fleet. An older fleet can be much costlier to run compared to replacing it. With a leased car you can have better and more accurate visibility on the total cost of ownership as you just pay a fixed monthly lease rental for usage, and everything is managed by the leasing Ayvens.   From a fleet management perspective, it will be prudent for companies to rely on vehicle data that gives them insight on vehicle health as well as predictive maintenance. Strategies like these will go a long way in maximising uptime, especially if the business relies heavily on employee mobility or goods movement. The biggest TCO gains don’t come from one lever—they come from optimising the entire fleet ecosystem. Our team at Ayvens works closely with clients to help them with their fleet management strategy and its implementation. Digitalisation is transforming fleet management through telematics, connected vehicles, AI and predictive analytics. Which technologies are delivering the most measurable gains in fleet efficiency, driver safety and cost optimisation today? Telematics and connected vehicle technologies are currently delivering the most immediate and measurable gains. Real-time tracking, route optimisation, and driver behaviour analytics directly improve fuel efficiency, safety, and utilisation. The real value of digitalisation lies in turning real-time data into real-time decisions. We foresee the growing adoption of predictive analytics, which will help fleet managers anticipate maintenance needs and reduce downtime—moving fleet management practices from being reactive to more proactive. Moreover, you have the option to pre-configure your safety criteria such as max speed, max kms per drive/per day, night-driving restrictions, etc., you can restrict high-risk usage of the vehicle and improve the safety of your staff. As sustainability goals become increasingly linked to business performance, how are organisations balancing cost efficiency, employee mobility needs and emissions reduction objectives? Organisations today are no longer treating cost efficiency, employee experience and sustainability as separate priorities—they are increasingly integrating them into one decision framework. The most effective mobility strategies today are those that align cost, experience, and sustainability—not trade them off. For example, offering employees access to hybrids or EVs can improve driving experience while reducing both emissions and running costs. More and more organisations in the Agriculture and AgroChem sectors are improving vehicle utilization and reducing operating costs through centralized fleet governance and leasing programs to get better reach to growers through mobile agronomy teams as well as provide an enhanced employee experience while achieving their ESG goals via standardized vehicle policies and mobility benefits. Beyond vehicle utilisation, what opportunities do organisations often overlook when seeking to improve fleet productivity, optimise Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) and enhance employee mobility? Some commonly overlooked areas include: Business strategy – Modern fleet and mobility programmes are increasingly measured not only by cost but also by employee convenience, flexibility, and wellbeing. Many companies still expecting their field staff to use public transport or use of their personal vehicles for business use. However, providing a leased business car is the cheapest way to provide mobility for the field staff. Moreover, this helps in better cost management, more efficient fleet management, improved productivity, uninterrupted business continuity and helps with employee retention, attracting new talent, employee motivation. Journey and demand optimisation – Examining the business need for journeys, consolidating journeys, improving route planning and matching vehicle type to trip requirements can significantly improve productivity and reduce costs. Data-driven fleet management – Many organisations under-utilise telematics, connected vehicle data, and predictive analytics. This can improve maintenance planning, reduce downtime, optimise replacement cycles, and provide better visibility into operating costs. Driver behaviour and safety programs – One of our strategic trainings specially organised for business car lease clients, which is Defensive Driver Training Program, coaches’ drivers on fuel-efficient and safe driving, can help clients reduce fuel consumption, accident rates, maintenance costs, and insurance expenses, all of which contribute directly to lower TCO Asset lifecycle and procurement optimisation – Reviewing acquisition methods – whether to lease a new car or pre-leased car, replacement timing and end of contract strategies – whether to extend the contract to ensure optimal usage of the vehicle or upgrade to a new vehicle, can generate substantial savings beyond what utilisation improvements alone can achieve. Using the vehicle for company’s branding- a vehicle with you brand on it is free visibility of your brand wherever the vehicle moves. With multiple powertrain technologies emerging, how should organisations evaluate and plan their transition towards electrified and sustainable mobility solutions? With multiple technologies evolving simultaneously, organisations should avoid making a single, long-term bet. Instead, the focus should be on a phased and diversified transition strategy. The future of mobility is not one technology—it’s the right mix of technologies applied intelligently. At Ayvens, we guide clients towards a balanced mix—EVs for predictable urban use cases, hybrids for efficiency without disruption, and CNG for high-utilisation fleets. The emphasis is on “fit-for-purpose” adoption rather than blanket transitions. Economic uncertainty, evolving regulations and changing workforce expectations continue to reshape mobility needs. What role does flexible fleet management and mobility planning play in helping organisations navigate these shifts? In an environment shaped by economic uncertainty, regulatory changes, and evolving workforce expectations, flexibility is becoming critical. Flexible fleet management—through leasing models, scalable fleet sizes, and adaptable policies—allows organisations to respond quickly to changing business needs. In uncertain times, flexibility is not just an advantage—it is a necessity for fleet resilience. We see flexibility as a key enabler of both resilience and cost control. In fact to take care of these uncertainties, we are working on products & services that will help our clients switch their fleet management solutions basis their changing business dynamics as well as their strategic and operational priorities. Looking ahead, what will differentiate successful fleet and mobility programmes: cost management alone, or the ability to leverage data, technology and strategic fleet planning? While cost efficiency will remain important, the real differentiator will be the ability to continuously adapt using data, technology, and strategic planning. The future will belong not to the lowest-cost fleets, but to the smartest and most adaptive ones. Organisations that leverage analytics, automation, and integrated fleet strategies will outperform those relying solely on static cost optimisation. As mobility continues to evolve, how can organisations transform fleet management from an operational necessity into a strategic lever for cost efficiency, sustainability and business growth? As mobility evolves, organisations need to move beyond viewing fleet management as a back-end operational function and start treating it as a core strategic capability and investment. The organisations that will lead in the next phase of mobility are those that treat fleet management not as an operational necessity, but as a strategic lever for efficiency, sustainability, and growth. This transformation begins with taking a holistic approach—integrating powertrain strategy, digitalization and mobility policies into one cohesive framework. Instead of focusing only on cost control, organisations need to optimise across multiple dimensions: cost efficiency, sustainability, employee experience, and business agility. At Ayvens, we see this shift happening through three key enablers. First, data-driven decision-making, where telematics and analytics provide real-time insights to continuously optimise fleet performance. Second, strategic powertrain diversification, ensuring the right mix of EVs, hybrids, and CNG vehicles aligned to actual usage. And third, flexible fleet models, which allow organisations to scale and adapt quickly in response to changing business needs. When these elements come together, fleet management moves from being a cost centre to a value driver—reducing operating expenses, supporting ESG goals, and enabling more efficient, agile operations. -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4510/why-indias-next-agritech-wave-will-be-driven-by-value-creation.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4510/why-indias-next-agritech-wave-will-be-driven-by-value-creation.html Thu, 20 Aug 2026 17:37:46 +0530 The Indian agriculture investment story is entering an important new phase. Rather than viewing it simply as a “post-hype” cycle, it may be more accurate to describe it as a post-narrative, value-creation cycle—one where investors are looking beyond market size and technology narratives to assess the fundamentals of building enduring businesses. Capital is certainly not leaving Indian agriculture. Instead, it is moving deeper into the value chain, as reflected in recent fund-raises and institutional interest in companies such as Superplum, Arboreal Bioinnovations, KisaanSay and Pehle Jaisa, alongside the IPO and institutional capital raised by Milky Mist. These developments point to a more discerning investment environment, where differentiated business models and demonstrable value creation are gaining importance. For several years, investors were willing to underwrite large market opportunities, rapid technology adoption and aggressive growth. Today, the questions are far more fundamental: Does the business solve a real problem? Who is willing to pay for that solution? Can customers be acquired efficiently? Are revenues and cash flows predictable? And, ultimately, can technology deliver measurable economic value across the agricultural value chain? In this context, the investment lens is also broadening. Agriculture is no longer being viewed merely through the prism of farm-level opportunities. The larger opportunity lies across an interconnected ecosystem spanning farm mechanisation, rural credit, aquaculture, biotechnology, food processing, logistics and supply chains. In an exclusive interview with AgroSpectrum, Harsh Deodhar, Principal, Enrission India Capital, offers insights into this changing investment landscape. Drawing from Enrission India Capital’s experience and its broader approach to agriculture, Deodhar examines where capital is moving, what investors are demanding from agritech businesses, and why the next phase of growth will be defined less by compelling narratives and more by sustainable economics, execution and measurable value creation. His perspective offers an important takeaway for entrepreneurs and investors alike: the next chapter of Indian agritech may not be about discovering the next big story, but about building businesses that can prove their value. Has Indian agritech entered a post-hype investment cycle? Yes—but I would call it a maturity cycle rather than a correction cycle. The first wave of Indian agritech investing was largely about digitising a fragmented sector. Marketplaces, farmer apps, advisory platforms and digital distribution models attracted significant investor attention. Some of those businesses created tremendous value, but the sector also learned that agricultural technology has a different scaling curve from consumer internet. Agriculture has fragmented customers, seasonal cash flows, working-capital requirements, regulatory dependencies and significant physical-world execution. Technology alone cannot eliminate those realities. It can improve the way the ecosystem functions, but the underlying economics of agriculture still have to work. The numbers tell us that capital has already become more selective. Indian agrifood tech startups raised approximately $940 million across 129 deals in 2023, a 60 per cent decline in funding from 2022, even though deal count remained relatively stable. That is an important distinction: investor interest did not disappear; the price and size of capital changed. I therefore do not see this as investors losing interest in agriculture. Rather, the investment lens has become more sophisticated. Investors are asking deeper questions about the businesses they are backing and the economic value they are creating. At EIC, our evaluation framework today is therefore much more focused on quality of revenue rather than just quantity of revenue. We look at the nature of the revenue, the customer, retention, contribution margins, working-capital requirements and the underlying economics of the business. A company may show rapid top-line growth, but if that growth requires disproportionately higher capital, discounts or customer acquisition costs, the quality of that growth becomes questionable. For us, this value-chain approach can be observed with KiVi. KiVi represents a different part of the same value chain. It works across credit, commerce and distribution for the farm-gate ecosystem. The interesting proposition is not simply “fintech for farmers”; it is the ability to build a technology layer around an existing agricultural economic network. That distinction is important. The opportunity is not necessarily to create an entirely new agricultural behaviour. It can also be about making an existing economic network more efficient. That is the change I see in the market: investors are increasingly asking where the economic surplus is being created and how much of that surplus the startup can capture. The next phase of agritech investment will therefore be less about the strength of the narrative and more about the strength of the underlying business. Where is institutional capital moving next? I expect the next significant wave of institutional capital to move towards businesses that sit between agriculture and industrial-scale value creation. The opportunity is much broader than what has traditionally been classified as agritech. Agriculture is connected to infrastructure, manufacturing, biotechnology, finance, logistics, food processing, energy and the broader biological economy. As investors become more sophisticated, these intersections are becoming increasingly interesting. Three areas particularly interest me. First is agri-infrastructure and mechanisation. India's agricultural productivity cannot be transformed purely through software. Mechanisation, storage, cold chains, logistics, irrigation, processing and supply-chain infrastructure are enormous opportunities. There is a fundamental physical layer to agriculture. Farmers need access to machinery, water, storage and markets. Produce needs to move efficiently from the farm to processors, retailers and consumers. Losses need to be reduced. Productivity needs to improve. Therefore, technology businesses that are enabling these physical assets to operate more efficiently can create significant value. In many cases, the next generation of agricultural technology may be less about an app and more about improving the economics of a physical agricultural process. Second is biologicals and climate-resilient agriculture. There is a growing opportunity around alternative proteins, biological inputs, waste utilisation, carbon efficiency, water efficiency and technologies that improve agricultural productivity without proportionally increasing resource consumption. Our investment in Loopworm is a good illustration. The company operates at the intersection of biotechnology, agriculture, animal nutrition and the circular economy, using insects as a biological platform to create products from agricultural and organic waste. It demonstrates why the future opportunity is not necessarily “agritech” in the traditional sense—it is technology applied to the broader agri-biological economy. This is an important shift in how we think about the sector. Agricultural value creation does not stop at the farm gate. Biological resources, agricultural waste, animal nutrition and alternative production systems can all become part of the investment opportunity. Third is digitally enabled financial and distribution infrastructure. Agriculture remains fundamentally constrained by access to working capital, market linkages and fragmented distribution. Platforms such as KiVi demonstrate that there is substantial opportunity in building the infrastructure through which farmers, FPOs, rural entrepreneurs, lenders and buyers interact. The value here comes from connecting fragmented participants and making transactions more efficient. If technology can reduce friction, improve access to capital or make distribution more predictable, it can create measurable economic value. I also expect aquaculture and allied agriculture to become increasingly important. At EIC, our investment in Fishmongers is an example of this broader approach. The company is building a technology-enabled fish supply chain using IoT-based aquaculture and transportation technologies. Aquaculture illustrates how large the opportunity becomes when we stop defining agriculture narrowly. It has production, biological risk, logistics, cold chains, transportation, quality management and market-linkage requirements. Technology can potentially improve each of these layers. This is agriculture investing expanding beyond the traditional definition of the farm. The larger opportunity, therefore, is the agri-value chain, not just the farm. Are valuations becoming more realistic? Valuation getting more realistic is a healthy sign of maturity for the ecosystem. During the funding boom, some businesses were valued primarily on future potential—large TAMs, user numbers and aggressive growth projections. The market today is much more interested in what I would call quality-adjusted growth. A company growing 100 per cent but consuming significant amounts of capital may be less attractive than a company growing 40–50 per cent with strong contribution margins, high retention and a credible path to profitability. That is particularly relevant in agriculture because scaling often requires working capital and physical execution. The capital required to grow can therefore be materially different from what we see in purely digital businesses. For agriculture in particular, I think investors will increasingly value contribution margin rather than GMV; cash conversion rather than bookings; repeat transactions rather than registered farmers; farmer income or productivity improvement where relevant; working-capital efficiency; customer retention; revenue predictability; and the capital required to reach the next Rs 100 crore of revenue. These metrics tell us much more about the sustainability of a business than headline growth alone. The question is not simply whether a company can grow. The question is how efficiently it can grow. This is also changing the conversation between founders and investors. Founders need to think about capital efficiency from the beginning because the market will increasingly reward businesses that can demonstrate operating leverage. Founders also need to recognise that the objective of a fundraising round is not to maximise valuation at any cost. An unnecessarily high valuation can create a problem in the next round if operating performance does not catch up. A valuation is ultimately a reflection of the business that has been built. If the underlying economics improve, the valuation can follow. The best founders today are building businesses that can earn their next valuation rather than negotiate it. That, in my view, is one of the clearest signs that the ecosystem is maturing. What will successful exits look like? I expect India to see a combination of strategic acquisitions, IPOs and secondary transactions, rather than one dominant exit route. For many agribusinesses, strategic acquisition may actually be more logical than an IPO. Large FMCG companies, food processors, agricultural-input companies, logistics companies, financial institutions and global corporations have strong reasons to acquire technology, distribution networks, brands and intellectual property. The strategic value of an agritech company may therefore extend beyond its standalone financial performance. A larger company may see value in its distribution network, customer relationships, technology, data capabilities, brand or access to a particular agricultural ecosystem. We are already seeing how strategic capital is entering food and agriculture. For example, Temasek invested in Milky Mist ahead of its IPO, while the company has built a large-scale value-added dairy business with significant profitability and distribution. That is instructive because it demonstrates the type of business that can eventually attract multiple pools of capital: a real operating business, with scale, margins, distribution and a credible public-market pathway. Food processing is particularly interesting in this context. India's agricultural exports increased from $34.5 billion in FY20 to $51.1 billion in FY25, while processed food accounted for 20.4 per cent of exports. That suggests the value-creation opportunity is increasingly moving from simply producing agricultural commodities to processing, branding and exporting them. This is a significant opportunity because value addition can fundamentally change the economics of agricultural production. Instead of competing only on the price of a commodity, businesses can build differentiated products, brands and distribution networks. The exit ecosystem will strengthen when more Indian agribusinesses reach institutional scale and when strategic buyers begin viewing startups as acquisition targets rather than merely technology vendors. I also expect secondary transactions to become more relevant as the ecosystem matures. As businesses grow, early investors and founders will have opportunities to partially realise value while allowing companies to bring in larger institutional investors for the next phase of growth. Ultimately, successful exits will come from businesses that have demonstrated that their economic model works at scale. What would make Indian agribusiness truly investable at scale? The biggest requirement is formalisation of the agricultural value chain. India has enormous agricultural output, but the value chain remains fragmented across millions of farmers, intermediaries, traders, processors, financiers and logistics providers. Unity in diversity is an absolute truth for agri-based startups. Every 100 km in India, language changes, habits change, buying patterns change, problem definition changes and hence the agri-economics changes. That makes scaling particularly challenging. Post-pandemic, we have seen a great spike in farm-to-plate startups, and many of these businesses have real value. But scale is a massive challenge. A model that works in one geography or commodity may not automatically work across another. The unit economics can change because of differences in crop patterns, farmer behaviour, logistics, purchasing power, infrastructure and market structures. Technology can connect these participants, but technology alone is not enough. We need better agricultural data infrastructure, stronger FPOs, interoperable digital systems, easier access to institutional credit, improved warehousing and cold-chain infrastructure, predictable regulations and greater adoption of modern processing and logistics. There is encouraging progress. By February 2026, India had registered 10,000 Farmer Producer Organisations, while food-processing initiatives have expanded cold-chain, processing and backward- and forward-linkage infrastructure. Agricultural exports and processed-food exports are also growing. From an investor's perspective, however, the biggest opportunity is to connect these pieces. The agricultural ecosystem has many individual components, but the value is often lost because these components do not interact efficiently. Better connectivity between farmers, FPOs, financial institutions, processors, logistics providers and buyers can unlock significant economic value. This is why our investment philosophy at EIC increasingly looks at the economic infrastructure surrounding agriculture rather than agriculture in isolation. For us, KiVi addresses capital and distribution. Fishmongers addresses aquaculture and supply-chain efficiency. Loopworm looks at biological production and circularity. These may appear to be very different businesses, but they have one thing in common: each attempts to remove a structural inefficiency from the agricultural economy. That is the lens through which we look at opportunities. We are not necessarily looking for businesses that simply call themselves agritech. We are looking for businesses that solve important problems within the agricultural economy and can build scalable, defensible businesses around those solutions. The real opportunity is therefore not simply to build more agritech companies. It is to build the infrastructure, technology, financial systems and businesses that make Indian agriculture more productive, efficient, resilient and globally competitive. That is the transition from venture capital to value creation—and I believe it is only beginning. -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4373/why-el-nio-is-forcing-cotton-farming-to-rethink-productivity.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4373/why-el-nio-is-forcing-cotton-farming-to-rethink-productivity.html Wed, 29 Jul 2026 14:33:19 +0530 For decades, cotton farming has measured success in tonnes harvested and yields achieved. But as climate extremes become more frequent, that definition is beginning to change. In this exclusive conversation with AgroSpectrum, Alison Ward, CEO of CottonConnect, explains why El Niño is more than a weather event—it is exposing structural weaknesses in conventional cotton production, from degraded soils and rising input costs to fragile supply chains. She makes a compelling case that resilience, not just productivity, will determine the future competitiveness of the cotton sector. Backed by evidence from CottonConnect's work with farmers, Alison discusses how regenerative practices are improving profitability while reducing dependence on synthetic inputs and scarce natural resources. She also highlights the growing role of brands, traceability and long-term partnerships in building climate-ready cotton value chains. At a time when agriculture is being forced to adapt faster than ever before, this interview offers an important perspective on what it will take to grow cotton sustainably in an increasingly unpredictable world. The Stress Test for Modern Cotton Farming El Niño events often expose vulnerabilities that remain hidden during normal growing seasons. Why do periods of extreme heat and erratic rainfall tend to reveal the limitations of input-heavy cotton production systems more sharply than other climatic events? El Niño acts as a stress test because it combines multiple pressures at once, extreme heat, delayed rainfall, and sudden shifts in growing conditions. Cotton systems that rely heavily on external inputs such as irrigation, fertilisers, and pesticides are typically designed around stable, predictable environments. When those conditions change, their effectiveness becomes less reliable. Over time, the intensive use of chemical inputs can weaken soil biology. That matters because climate resilience is also about whether the farming system itself is strong enough to cope when weather patterns become more volatile. When heavy rainfall follows dry periods, for example, soils with poor structure are more vulnerable to erosion and runoff. El Niño does not create entirely new risks, but it makes existing weaknesses much more visible. This is why we have worked with local partners in regions affected by El Niño to run education sessions for farmers on preventative measures and share government technical advisories with them.  When More Inputs Deliver Diminishing Returns Many cotton-growing regions have responded to climate uncertainty by increasing applications of fertilizers, pesticides and irrigation. At what point does this strategy become a form of risk amplification rather than risk management, particularly under El Niño conditions? In many cotton-producing regions, increasing inputs has been seen as a way to manage uncertainty. However, under conditions of extreme heat and water stress, the efficiency of those inputs declines. Fertilisers are less effectively absorbed, pest dynamics become harder to predict, and irrigation becomes both more costly and less reliable. At a certain point, this dynamic shifts from risk management to risk amplification. Farmers are investing more in inputs while outcomes become increasingly unpredictable. This raises the cost base without guaranteeing returns. Evidence from CottonConnect’s programmes shows that reducing reliance on synthetic inputs, through approaches such as improved soil management and biological alternatives, can lower input costs while maintaining or improving yields, leading to stronger overall profitability. Farmers in these programmes have seen a 15.4 per cent reduction in input costs alongside a 7.5 per cent increase in yields, contributing to a near 35 per cent increase in profitability. This suggests that resilience is not necessarily about increasing inputs, but about improving how the system functions. The Water-Energy-Fertilizer Nexus Delayed monsoons and prolonged dry spells frequently coincide with rising irrigation costs and reduced nutrient-use efficiency. How does El Niño challenge the economic logic of production systems that are heavily dependent on external inputs? El Niño intensifies the interdependence between water, energy, and fertiliser use. Delayed rainfall increases reliance on irrigation, which in turn raises energy costs for pumping water. In some areas, delayed monsoons can also contribute to the depletion of underground water tables altogether, making it even harder for farmers to access water for irrigation. At the same time, dry soil conditions reduce nutrient-use efficiency, so fertilisers are less effectively absorbed. Farmers are therefore exposed to rising costs across multiple inputs, while productivity becomes less predictable. Cotton systems in some regions are already highly dependent on irrigation, particularly in areas with low rainfall, where production cannot take place without it. El Niño intensifies this dependency and exposes its economic vulnerability. This is where approaches that reduce synthetic fertiliser use, improve soil health and promote more efficient irrigation practices can help lower water consumption and reduce overall input dependency, improving the economics of production and increasing farmer profitability. CottonConnect’s 2025 Impact Report shows that the REEL Programme recorded reduced input costs, reduced chemical fertiliser and pesticide use, and increased farmer profit compared with control farmers, supporting the case for shifting from input intensity to more resource-efficient farming systems. Resilience Versus Productivity For decades, cotton innovation has largely focused on maximizing yields. Has the industry underestimated resilience as a breeding and management objective, and are El Niño years forcing a rethink of what agricultural success should actually look like? Historically, cotton production has prioritised yield maximisation, often under the assumption of relatively stable growing conditions. This has been shaped by the need to meet rising global demand and ensure consistent supply. El Niño, however, exposes the limits of measuring success through yield alone. Success cannot be simply about meeting demand today, but ensuring cotton can continue to be produced reliably in the years to come. As climate volatility increases, that requires a broader view of agricultural success, one that values resilience alongside productivity. Through CottonConnect's programmes, we encourage farmers to view farming as a holistic business, helping them to consider profitability, risk management and the long-term health of their farms. With our support, many farmers are adopting regenerative practices such as intercropping, biodiversity enhancement and Integrated Pest Management. These approaches help improve productivity, lower input costs, diversify income streams and enable farmers to adapt to a changing climate. Brands also have an important role to play. Building resilience takes time, and farmers are more likely to invest in long-term improvements when they know they have sustained support. By investing in farmer training, water management, farm infrastructure and other resilience-building interventions, brands can help strengthen farming communities while securing a more stable and sustainable cotton supply for the future. Traceability and due diligence systems are equally important, providing the visibility and assurance needed to support long-term sourcing relationships. Soil Health as Climate Infrastructure Many agronomists argue that healthy soils function as a form of natural climate insurance by improving water retention and nutrient cycling. To what extent do El Niño episodes highlight the consequences of neglecting soil biology in favour of input-driven productivity models? Healthy soils play a critical role in buffering crops against climate variability. They improve water retention, support nutrient cycling, and maintain structure during heavy rainfall. Where soils have been degraded, often through overuse of synthetic inputs and limited organic matter, this buffering capacity is reduced. Crops become more vulnerable to both drought and flooding, both of which occur as a result of El Niño, and inputs become less effective. Regenerative agriculture can play an important role in reducing reliance on synthetic inputs and supporting long-term soil stewardship. In 2024-25, CottonConnect's programmes have seen a 127.3 per cent increase in the use of natural pesticides and a 107.6 per cent increase in the use of natural fertilisers, alongside a 15.2 per cent reduction in chemical pesticide use and an 11.8 per cent reduction in chemical fertiliser use. Whilst El Niño holds a magnifying glass up to some of these issues around soil health, it is a conversation that is, and must continue to be, much more widely had in order to scale up regenerative farming practices in all regions and across all industries that rely on agriculture. Rethinking Risk in Cotton Economics When rainfall becomes unpredictable and heat stress intensifies, farmers often face rising input costs alongside declining returns. Does El Niño expose a deeper flaw in how agricultural risk is currently assessed and managed within cotton value chains? El Niño exposes a deeper issue in how risk is assessed within cotton value chains. Traditional approaches have often assumed a relatively predictable relationship between inputs and outputs: if farmers invest more in fertilisers, pesticides and irrigation, they should achieve higher yields and stronger returns. As climate volatility increases, that relationship becomes far less certain. Farmers can face rising costs at the same time as yields become more variable, making it harder to predict whether those investments will pay off. This challenge is compounded by the fact that input costs are rising faster than cotton prices in many markets, placing increasing pressure on profitability. As a result, agricultural risk management must account for both climate volatility and economic pressures, with a greater focus on building farming systems that can withstand both. Ultimately, El Niño highlights a structural imbalance within cotton value chains. Farmers often absorb the immediate impacts of climate and market volatility, while the wider value chain depends on a stable supply of cotton. Responding effectively requires a broader view of risk, extending beyond production to the people and communities that underpin cotton supply chains.At CottonConnect, we take a systematic approach to identifying and addressing these risks through risk mapping, Human Rights Due Diligence interventions, stakeholder engagement, training and a 24/7 grievance mechanism. Building resilience starts with supporting the farmers, workers and partnerships that sustain cotton production over the long term. The Future of Regenerative and Climate-Smart Cotton There is growing interest in regenerative agriculture, biological inputs and diversified farming systems. Are these approaches proving more resilient during El Niño years, or is the evidence still insufficient to justify a large-scale transition away from conventional input-intensive models? Approaches that enhance soil health, reduce synthetic inputs, and improve water management are showing measurable benefits, including reduced input costs, improved yield performance and greater profitability for farmers. CottonConnect's 2024 Life Cycle Assessment also found significant environmental benefits associated with practices such as improved irrigation and reduced fertiliser use. Compared with conventional production, the REEL Cotton Programme demonstrated a 35.4 per cent saving potential in greenhouse gas emissions, a 44 per cent reduction in eutrophication, a 42 per cent reduction in ecotoxicity, and around 35 per cent lower water use per kilogram of fibre. That said, evidence on performance under extreme weather events such as El Niño is still developing, and outcomes can vary by location. So, the case is not for an overnight replacement of existing systems, but for a managed transition towards lower-risk, more resource-efficient production models that can better support farmers and supply chains in a changing climate. Beyond Adaptation: Designing the Cotton System of the Future If climate variability becomes the new normal rather than an occasional disruption, what fundamental changes will be required in cotton production systems, supply chains and agricultural policy to ensure long-term viability in an increasingly volatile climate? As climate variability becomes more persistent, the cotton sector will need to move beyond short-term adaptation and focus on structural change across farming systems and supply chains. At farm level, this means strengthening the natural resilience of production systems. In practice, this includes improving soil organic content through composting and bio-based inputs, adopting intercropping, mulching and reduced tillage techniques, and supporting farmers with continuous training, demonstrations and practical advisory tools. But farm-level change cannot happen in isolation. Farmers need access to knowledge, technical support, markets, finance, local institutions and enabling policy if these practices are to be adopted at scale. This is why partnerships matter: they help connect individual farm practice with the wider systems that shape whether farmers can actually make and sustain change. CottonConnect works with a strong network of local NGO partners with grassroots reach, as well as agricultural science centres, the International Cotton Advisory Committee, Bangladesh’s Cotton Development Board, the Sustainable Agriculture Network, the Cotton Textiles Export Promotion Council and local government departments. These partnerships support practical interventions such as soil and water conservation, tree plantation and access to government schemes. That makes resilience bigger than any one farm, because it links farmer training with local expertise, public support and supply chain demand. Traceability will also play a critical role. CottonConnect has achieved 100 per cent traceability for REEL Cotton through TraceBale, while the REEL Cotton and REEL Regenerative Codes have evolved into sustainability standards with producer group certification. This visibility and standardisation helps verify how cotton is produced and whether sustainability efforts are translating into real-world outcomes, supporting the wider transition to more resilient and sustainable cotton supply chains.  -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4354/why-resilience-has-become-thailands-biggest-competitive-advantage-in-swine-production.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4354/why-resilience-has-become-thailands-biggest-competitive-advantage-in-swine-production.html Mon, 27 Jul 2026 15:51:30 +0530 As global geopolitical tensions increasingly influence agricultural supply chains, resilience has become as important as productivity in livestock production. In this exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Asst. Prof. Dr. Natthawut Rattanavanichroj, Assistant Professor, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kasetsart University, Thailand, examines how Thailand's swine industry is adapting to rising feed costs, supply chain disruptions and evolving animal health risks. He explains why biosecurity must extend beyond disease prevention to encompass logistics, preventive healthcare and supply chain resilience. The discussion also explores the long-term implications of imported feed dependence, veterinary product sourcing and global freight volatility on the sector's competitiveness. Dr. Rattanavanichroj highlights the growing importance of robust vaccination programmes, renewable energy adoption and domestic feed production in strengthening industry resilience. As recurring global shocks redefine livestock economics, he argues that sustainable profitability will increasingly depend on comprehensive risk management rather than cost optimisation alone. This interview offers valuable insights into the structural changes shaping the future of Thailand's swine industry and the broader animal protein sector. The Strait of Hormuz is traditionally framed as an energy chokepoint. At what point does it become a direct determinant of animal protein systems like Thailand's swine sector through second-order feed and veterinary input inflation? The Strait of Hormuz has become much more than an energy chokepoint—it now directly influences the economics of animal protein production through multiple indirect channels. Regarding Thailand's swine industry, conflicts in the region affect three major cost components. First, although energy itself represents a relatively small share of total production costs, higher fuel prices significantly increase transportation and electricity expenses throughout the supply chain, from feed mills to farms and processing facilities. Second, the biggest impact is on feed ingredients. Feed accounts for approximately 65–70 percent of total swine production costs, making it the single largest cost component. Thailand imports more than 99 percent of its soybean meal requirements, leaving the industry highly exposed to global shipping disruptions and commodity price fluctuations. In addition, around 40 percent of Thailand's fertilizer imports pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Any disruption raises fertilizer prices, increasing the cost of producing domestic feed crops such as corn, thereby creating another layer of inflation in feed production. Finally, inflationary pressures eventually influence labour costs. Sustained increases in the cost of living are likely to push minimum wages higher over time, adding further pressure to production costs. Taken together, disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz have evolved from being an energy concern into a direct driver of production economics across Thailand's livestock sector. Thailand's swine industry has historically relied on import-efficient feed sourcing. Is that model still viable, or has global grain price volatility permanently broken the assumption of predictable input economics? Thailand currently has little alternative but to continue relying on imported feed ingredients because domestic production remains insufficient to meet industry demand. Soybean is the clearest example. Domestic soybean production is very limited, and most locally produced soybeans are non-GMO varieties, which are generally unsuitable for large-scale industrial feed manufacturing. As a result, imported soybean meal will continue to remain an essential component of feed formulation. While recent geopolitical tensions and commodity market volatility have made feed costs less predictable, the industry's dependence on imports cannot be eliminated in the near term. Instead of expecting stable input prices, producers now need to accept volatility as a structural feature of the business. This means building greater flexibility into procurement strategies, inventory management and financial planning rather than relying on historically predictable feed economics. Beyond cost, what is the most underappreciated operational risk today in swine production—feed availability, veterinary supply continuity, or logistics reliability—and why? In my view, logistics reliability and animal welfare represent the most underappreciated operational risks facing Thailand's swine industry today. From an operational perspective, the livestock transportation system still lacks sufficient energy efficiency, increasing costs while reducing overall supply chain performance. More importantly, transportation poses a significant biosecurity risk because vehicles moving between farms can easily facilitate disease transmission if sanitation protocols are inadequate. Animal welfare during transport is another critical concern. Poor transport conditions—including prolonged heat exposure, overcrowding and excessive handling stress—not only reduce animal welfare but also negatively affect productivity and meat quality. From a veterinary perspective, transport-induced heat stress can suppress the pigs' immune systems, while overcrowding creates ideal conditions for rapid disease transmission. If animals have not received complete and effective vaccination, this weakened immune status makes them particularly susceptible to diseases such as Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome (PRRS) and Porcine Circovirus Disease (PCVD). These diseases become even more problematic when they occur simultaneously, reducing daily weight gain, increasing respiratory illness and causing substantial production losses. Hence, preventive health programmes and robust vaccination strategies should be viewed not only as disease control measures but also as essential biological buffers that protect herd productivity throughout the production cycle. How is rising global freight and insurance volatility reshaping the structure of Thailand's livestock supply chain—not in price terms, but in terms of who controls supply access? Thailand has maintained a relatively neutral position in global trade and has not experienced major restrictions in accessing imported feed ingredients or veterinary products. Therefore, supply access itself has remained relatively stable. The primary challenge continues to be price volatility rather than physical shortages. Freight rates, insurance costs and global market conditions influence import prices, but Thailand has generally been able to maintain access to international suppliers. At present, the country's livestock supply chain is shaped more by fluctuations in global commodity and logistics costs than by changes in ownership or control over supply access. Is Thailand's swine health system becoming structurally dependent on a small number of global pharmaceutical and biologics suppliers, and does that concentration now represent a systemic vulnerability? The situation has improved compared with previous years because Thailand now has access to veterinary pharmaceuticals and biologics from a wider range of countries, including China, South Korea and Japan. However, the more fundamental vulnerability lies elsewhere. Thailand currently lacks sufficient domestic production capacity for veterinary pharmaceuticals and biological products. Regulatory complexity, limited economies of scale and the substantial investment required for manufacturing mean that local production remains limited compared with multinational companies. Consequently, Thailand continues to depend heavily on imported veterinary products. Strengthening strategic collaborations with leading global animal health companies therefore plays an important role in expanding access to advanced diagnostics, vaccines and preventive healthcare solutions. Such partnerships help bridge domestic research and development gaps while simultaneously improving national disease surveillance and veterinary capabilities. Has the definition of "biosecurity" in Thailand evolved enough to include economic and supply-chain shocks, or does policy still treat it narrowly as disease containment? At present, biosecurity policy in Thailand remains focused primarily on disease prevention and containment. Even within this traditional framework, implementation still requires significant strengthening, as disease risks continue to pose major challenges for producers. Looking ahead, biosecurity should be viewed through two complementary dimensions. The first is preventing disease introduction onto farms through strict external biosecurity measures. The second is maintaining healthy, resilient animals capable of resisting disease through effective vaccination and preventive healthcare. Diseases such as PCVD and PRRS continue to impose significant economic losses on producers. Advances in vaccine technology now allow both diseases to be addressed through single-injection routine vaccination programmes, reducing animal handling stress while improving herd immunity and overall welfare. Healthier animals also improve farm profitability, enabling producers to maintain stronger biosecurity systems against larger threats such as African Swine Fever (ASF), where biosecurity remains the industry's primary line of defence because no universally accepted commercial vaccine is yet available. Are we seeing early signs that swine production is shifting from a margin-driven agribusiness model to a risk-managed utility-like system under recurring global shocks? Yes. This transformation has become increasingly evident since the outbreaks of African Swine Fever (ASF) and the COVID-19 pandemic. Historically, producers focused primarily on maximising profitability. Today, the industry's priorities have shifted towards maintaining stable returns while managing multiple categories of risk simultaneously. Disease outbreaks, environmental uncertainty, supply chain disruptions and input price volatility have fundamentally changed business decision-making. Rather than pursuing maximum short-term margins, producers increasingly prioritise resilience, continuity and long-term sustainability. How do sustained input shocks alter farmer behavior at the ground level—specifically in terms of herd size decisions, vaccination compliance, and preventive health spending? Sustained cost pressures encourage farmers to reduce expenditure wherever possible, but some of these cost-cutting measures may ultimately prove counterproductive. One common response is reducing vaccination programmes or switching to lower-cost products through competitive procurement. From a veterinary standpoint, this represents a significant risk. Reducing immunoprophylaxis against highly contagious diseases may lower short-term veterinary costs, but it weakens herd immunity and allows subclinical infections to circulate within production systems. Although mortality may remain relatively low, chronically infected pigs often experience respiratory disease, slower growth rates and poorer production performance, ultimately reducing profitability. Consequently, compromising preventive healthcare rarely generates sustainable economic benefits. Cost pressures also influence herd size decisions. Smaller farms with weaker financial positions often reduce herd numbers or leave the industry altogether, whereas larger, more efficient operations generally maintain production scale while investing in improved risk management. To what extent is Thailand's competitiveness in regional pork markets now determined less by production efficiency and more by resilience to external input volatility? Both production efficiency and resilience to external shocks have become increasingly important, but production efficiency remains the foundation of long-term competitiveness. Efficient production systems continue to determine productivity and profitability under normal market conditions. However, larger commercial farms are placing much greater emphasis on managing feed price fluctuations, energy costs and other input risks in order to maintain stable financial performance during periods of market disruption. Increasingly, competitiveness depends not only on producing efficiently but also on maintaining operational resilience when external conditions become volatile. If global energy corridors remain unstable, what structural changes would be necessary for Thailand's swine sector to decouple itself from imported inflation without losing export relevance? Reducing long-term exposure to imported inflation will require structural reforms across both the energy and agricultural sectors. On the energy side, greater adoption of renewable energy, particularly biogas generated from livestock waste and on-farm solar power, would improve energy self-sufficiency while reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels. At the same time, agricultural policy should encourage greater domestic production of feed crops such as corn and soybeans through improved productivity and more diversified cropping systems. Reducing dependence on imported feed ingredients would strengthen supply chain resilience and lessen the industry's exposure to global commodity and freight market volatility. Together, greater energy independence and stronger domestic feed production would improve the long-term competitiveness and resilience of Thailand's swine industry while supporting its continued role in regional export markets. -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4335/future-of-rice-protection-lies-beyond-spray-bottle.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4335/future-of-rice-protection-lies-beyond-spray-bottle.html Thu, 23 Jul 2026 16:58:57 +0530 India's rice farmers are navigating one of the most significant transitions in modern agriculture. Rising labour costs, unpredictable weather and growing herbicide resistance are forcing a rethink of how weeds are managed, making innovation as much about strategy as chemistry. In this exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Biswajit Borah, Herbicide Portfolio Lead, UPL SAS Ltd, explains why the industry's next breakthrough will come from changing farmer behaviour rather than simply introducing new molecules. He discusses the role of early intervention, integrated crop management and stewardship in building more resilient and profitable rice production systems. The conversation also explores the future of Wet Direct Seeded Rice (Wet DSR), the growing importance of digital agronomy and UPL's long-term vision for sustainable crop protection. Ricebeaux enters a rice herbicide market that is already crowded with post-emergence products. Beyond broad-spectrum weed control, what structural gap in India's weed management ecosystem does this product aim to address, and how does it fundamentally change farmers' weed control strategies? Let me be direct — India's rice herbicide market does not need one more molecule. It needs a paradigm shift from reactive spraying to planned, effective weed management. That is the gap Ricebeaux is built to close. Today's farmer sprays when weeds are visible, then compensates with tank mixes, repeat applications or higher doses — a cycle driven by erratic monsoons, labour scarcity and increasingly tough weeds like Echinochloa crusgalli and Cyperus difformis. Ricebeaux, a pre-mix of Propanil 35.1% + Penoxsulam 0.9% SC, is our answer — application at the 2–3 leaf stage of weeds, broad-spectrum control across grasses, sedges and broadleaf weeds, and uncompromised crop safety. This is not a product story. This is a behavioural shift — from firefighting to foresight. Herbicide resistance is emerging as a growing concern in rice ecosystems worldwide, particularly with repeated use of the same chemistry. Ricebeaux combines two active ingredients with different modes of action. How significant is this approach in delaying resistance, and what stewardship practices will be necessary to preserve its long-term efficacy? Resistance is the single biggest threat to the long-term viability of chemical weed management in Indian rice. Repeated, single-site use of similar mode of action active ingredients like ALS and ACCase has already produced tolerance in Echinochloa spp. and Cyperus difformis across major geographies. Our position is unambiguous: the future belongs to multi-mode chemistry, applied with discipline. Ricebeaux combines Propanil (PS II inhibitor) with Penoxsulam (ALS inhibitor) — two independent biochemical pathways acting together, which actually slows resistance build-up. But chemistry alone is not stewardship. We are institutionalising four non-negotiables with our channel partners and farmers — apply at the correct 2–3 leaf weed stage, restrict use to Transplanted and Wet DSR (not Dry DSR), follow the label dose of 1200 ml/acre, and re-flood the field 24 hours after application for at least 10 days. Climate variability is altering weed emergence patterns, while labour shortages continue to reshape crop management practices. How are these two structural trends influencing herbicide innovation, and do you expect early post-emergence solutions to gradually replace traditional weed management practices in Indian rice cultivation? These are not passing headwinds — they are the new baseline of Indian agriculture, and any herbicide innovation that does not begin here will not survive the next decade. Erratic monsoons are compressing the weed-control window and triggering multiple flushes; labour cost and availability have made manual weeding economically unviable across most of India. That reality is pulling the entire industry towards fewer sprays, wider spectrum, multi mode-of-action pre-mixes and safer early post-emergence chemistry — precisely the space where the segment is growing at ~4 per cent CAGR. My conviction is clear: early post-emergence solutions like Ricebeaux will progressively replace late, multi-spray practices — especially in labour-scarce, high-rainfall belts of South and East India. Wet Direct Seeded Rice (Wet DSR) is gaining policy attention because of its potential to reduce water use and labour requirements. How critical will specialised crop protection solutions be in accelerating DSR adoption, and what role do you see Ricebeaux playing in supporting this transition? Wet DSR will not scale on policy intent alone. It will scale when we solve for the farmer's biggest fear — losing the crop to weeds in the first 25 days after sowing. In Wet DSR, weed pressure peaks at 0–25 DAS with a complex mix of Echinochloa, Cyperus iria, Fimbristylis, Monochoria and Ludwigia spp., and yield losses of 20–40 per cent are the norm when management fails. This is the barrier that has held DSR back for years. Ricebeaux is registered for both Transplanted Rice and Wet DSR, applied at 10–15 DAS at the 2–3 leaf stage of weeds — a single, broad-spectrum, crop-safe intervention purpose-built for this system. In our view, Ricebeaux is one of the tools that will make water-saving, labour-light rice cultivation commercially viable at scale in India. India's rice cultivation is becoming increasingly input-intensive, even as policymakers emphasise sustainable and precision agriculture. How is UPL balancing the need for higher field productivity with the growing expectation for responsible herbicide use, resistance management and environmental stewardship? I do not accept the framing that yield and sustainability are in tension. In a country producing rice on 45+ million hectares, they are the same conversation. UPL's approach rests on three deliberate pillars: Fewer, smarter interventions: Early post-emergence pre-mixes like Ricebeaux replace two or three sprays with one — reducing active ingredient load, spray drift and cost. Resistance-proofing by design: Dual mode of action combined with disciplined rotation across our pre-emergence brands — Saathi, Eros, Eros Gold — builds durability into the portfolio. Non-negotiable application discipline: Saturated soil at application, re-flooding after 24 hours, correct weed stage — enforced through channel training and farmer engagement. This is what sustainable intensification looks like in practice — more yield per acre, per drop, per spray. Farmers increasingly evaluate crop protection products on overall return on investment rather than efficacy alone. Based on your field evaluations, how does Ricebeaux influence yield protection, labour savings and cost efficiency compared with conventional herbicide programmes involving multiple sprays or tank mixes? Farmers are the sharpest ROI analysts I know, and they should be. Our field evaluations across major rice geographies, benchmarked against farmer practices market standards— consistently show Ricebeaux performing on-par to superior on the weeds that actually matter: Echinochloa, Leptochloa chinensis, Fimbristylis, Scirpus and Cyperus difformis. The ROI translates into three tangible gains for the farmer: Yield protected in the critical window: Uncontrolled weeds cost 20–60 per cent of yield in the first 30 DAS. Labour and time reclaimed: application at right time - instead of multiple tank-mix experimentation. Cost efficiency:  no tank-mix errors, no crop shock. Value for money delivered as net yield per rupee spent. Rice remains one of India's most strategically important crops for both domestic food security and exports. As production systems modernise, what are the next major technological gaps in rice crop protection that still require innovation, and where does UPL intend to focus its R&D investments over the next decade? Rice is India's most strategic crop — for food security, farmer incomes and export revenue. The innovation agenda for the next decade must reflect that stakes-level. As I see it, the real technological gaps are: Sustainable cultivation, profitable farmers. The next wave of innovation must make rice cultivation gentler on soil, water and the environment — while ensuring the farmer earns more, not less. Water-saving systems like Wet DSR, resistance-managed chemistry and reduced-load formulations are central to this shift, and Ricebeaux is a clear step in that direction. Integrated pest management, tailored to India's diversity. India is not one rice market — it is many. Weed flora, water availability, labour dynamics and farmer practices vary sharply from Punjab to Chhattisgarh to the Cauvery delta. The real innovation is not one more molecule; it is region-specific IPM programmes that blend chemistry, biologicals and digital advisory into solutions that fit each geography. From sustenance to dominance — more output, fewer resources. India must move beyond producing enough rice to producing better rice — higher yields per acre, per drop of water and per unit of input. That calls for smarter chemistry, precision application, resistance-proof portfolios and season-long crop programmes rather than isolated sprays.  The Indian crop protection industry is rapidly shifting towards integrated solutions that combine chemistry, biologicals and digital advisory platforms. How does Ricebeaux fit into UPL's broader strategy of offering integrated crop management solutions rather thanstandalone products, and how do you see this model evolving for rice farmers in the coming years? Selling standalone products is the industry's past. Selling a crop programme is its future — and that is exactly how we have designed our rice portfolio. Ricebeaux is one node in an integrated, season-long rice solution: Saathi and Eros/Eros Gold at pre-emergence, Ricebeaux at early post-emergence, and Kevuka and Zevigo for stem borer management, Saaf, Tridium of comprehensive disease management & crop excellence, through the vegetative and reproductive stages. Around this chemistry sits our digital and engagement layer — the Farmily platform for retailer and farmer connect via nurture.farm, WhatsApp advisories, farmer training on water management and application discipline, and demonstration-led adoption. The direction is clear- UPL is going to lead that transition, not follow it. -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com)   ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4312/hlb-is-testing-economics-of-global-citrus.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4312/hlb-is-testing-economics-of-global-citrus.html Tue, 21 Jul 2026 14:30:27 +0530 Every crisis in agriculture leaves behind a lesson, and the global citrus industry is learning one of its toughest yet. Huanglongbing (HLB), or citrus greening disease, has evolved from a plant health challenge into an economic, technological, and sustainability crisis that no citrus-producing nation can afford to ignore. In this exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, leading citrus consultant Gilberto Tozatti shares decades of field experience to explain why managing HLB today demands far more than pesticides or tree replacement—it requires a fundamental shift in how orchards are planned, protected, and managed. His perspective is grounded in science, yet shaped by the realities growers face every single season. The conversation also explores the intersection of climate change, innovation, economics, and policy, offering practical lessons for citrus-producing regions well beyond Brazil. As countries work to safeguard their citrus industries against mounting biological and climatic threats, Tozatti's insights serve as both a warning and a roadmap. This is indeed an essential conversation about the future resilience of global fruit production. Brazil has spent more than two decades fighting HLB, yet disease incidence has climbed to nearly 50 per cent in its most productive citrus belt. Has the industry reached the limits of conventional disease management, and does this crisis require an entirely new production model rather than incremental improvements? Brazil is indeed facing very high HLB incidence in its main citrus belt, close to 50 per cent of symptomatic trees in recent surveys. However, the latest Fundecitrus data suggest some stabilisation in several areas, indicating that current management efforts are having an effect, even if they are not enough to reverse the problem quickly. I do not believe this means conventional management has reached its limit. The recent stabilisation is largely associated with better psyllid control, improved insecticide rotation to reduce resistance risk, and more region-specific management. HLB pressure is not uniform across the citrus belt, so management cannot be the same everywhere. Although Brazilian regulations require the eradication of symptomatic trees, grower adoption is not always uniform. Some remove trees rigorously, while others delay eradication to continue harvesting fruit, especially under economic pressure. This inconsistency weakens regional control efforts. At this stage, I do not see an entirely new production model replacing the current principles of HLB management. What Brazil needs is continuous improvement of the existing system, with better vector control, more coordinated regional action, more rational decisions on tree removal and orchard renewal, and gradual incorporation of new technologies. In practice, Brazil is learning to produce citrus under permanent HLB pressure, and progress will depend more on strengthening integrated management than on a single disruptive change.  Orange production is forecast to decline by almost 13 per cent this season, with HLB and climate stress acting simultaneously. How much of today's production loss is truly attributable to climate variability, and how much reflects years of underestimating the long-term economic impact of greening? It is difficult to assign a precise share of current crop losses to climate stress versus HLB, because the two factors increasingly interact. Climate is inherently less predictable, and Brazil has experienced significant weather variability over the last five crop seasons, affecting flowering, fruit set and final yield. HLB, however, is a more structural and predictable problem over the long term. While climate drives seasonal volatility, HLB progressively reduces the productive capacity of the citrus belt by lowering yield, shortening orchard lifespan and increasing replanting and management costs. In 2024, at the 7th International Research Conference on HLB in California, I presented, together with colleagues, a crop forecasting model indicating that orange production in Brazil’s citrus belt could decline by nearly one-third over the next ten years if no disruptive change occurs. This suggests that, although climate explains part of the year-to-year fluctuations, the main long-term threat to Brazilian citrus production is HLB itself. There is also an important economic dimension. Future production will depend not only on disease management, but also on whether orange prices remain attractive enough to support investment in new orchards, including expansion into surrounding regions with potentially lower disease pressure. The industry has relied heavily on vector control and tree removal, but disease spread continues. Looking back, were there strategic mistakes in the way Brazil approached HLB management, and what lessons should emerging citrus-producing countries learn before they face similar outbreaks? When HLB was first detected in Brazil and the United States in 2004–2005, the available knowledge was limited. Management was essentially based on three principles: planting certified healthy nursery trees, controlling the psyllid vector and removing symptomatic trees. Over the past 20 years, however, our understanding of the disease has evolved considerably. Today, we know the importance of regional vector control, orchard location, planting in more isolated areas when possible, protecting young trees, using kaolin, improving insecticide management to reduce resistance, and recognising the strong border effect in disease spread. HLB management is now far more sophisticated than it was two decades ago. The main lesson is that no single measure is sufficient. Success depends on implementing all available strategies simultaneously and consistently, both at the orchard and regional level. Emerging citrus-producing countries should build on the knowledge accumulated in Brazil and the United States rather than repeating the long and costly learning process we experienced. Early adoption of integrated management can substantially reduce future economic losses. Technologies such as trunk injection, bactericides, biologicals, reflective mulches and precision agriculture are expanding the disease-management toolbox. Which of these innovations do you believe has the greatest potential to fundamentally change HLB management, and where do you still see critical technological gaps? In my view, there is no single technology that will fundamentally change HLB management across all situations. The first point is that disease incidence varies greatly among regions, so management must be adapted accordingly. In areas with low HLB incidence, the priority should remain prevention: certified healthy nursery trees, careful site selection, planting in more isolated areas when possible, rigorous psyllid control, especially in young orchards, strict border management, and tools such as kaolin to reduce vector pressure in the early years. In areas where HLB incidence is already high, the focus shifts toward maintaining orchard productivity and longevity. In these situations, nutritional and hormonal management, improved soil fertility to support root health, and the use of more tolerant scion varieties and rootstocks become increasingly important. Among the innovations with the greatest long-term potential, I would highlight more tolerant varieties and rootstocks, because they can improve orchard resilience under chronic HLB pressure. The main technological gaps remain the lack of reliable tools to reduce the impact of the bacterium inside the plant and the need for better genetic tolerance and more region-specific management strategies. The use of antibiotics such as oxytetracycline remains controversial because of antimicrobial resistance and export market concerns. How can the citrus industry balance the need for effective disease suppression with growing global scrutiny over antibiotic use in agriculture, and what safeguards are essential? HLB management cannot depend on any single tool, and that also applies to antibiotics. Effective control will continue to depend on an integrated strategy combining protected nursery trees, vector control, orchard renewal, and good nutritional and soil management. Oxytetracycline is clearly a controversial tool. It has been authorised for use in the United States, but it is not approved for citrus in Brazil. For that reason, any decision on antibiotic use must go beyond efficacy alone and also consider regulatory approval, food safety, antimicrobial resistance concerns, export market acceptance and consumer perception. In my view, antibiotics should only be considered if they are supported by strong scientific evidence, clear regulatory approval, strict residue monitoring and traceability, and acceptance by the market. Even then, they should be treated only as a possible component of an integrated HLB management programme, not as a central solution. HLB has dramatically increased production costs while reducing orchard lifespan and productivity. Is the economics of citrus farming approaching a tipping point where small and medium growers may no longer remain viable without major technological breakthroughs or policy intervention? Yes. In Brazil, rising citrus production costs have become a structural problem. HLB has increased spending on vector control, tree replacement, nutrition, monitoring and overall orchard care, while reducing productivity and orchard lifespan. In my own studies, the average break-even point over the last eight years has been around 859 boxes of 40.8 kg per hectare, while average productivity has been about 828 boxes per hectare. This means that many orchards and many growers are already operating below the level needed to cover full production costs. So, in practical terms, this tipping point is not a future risk; it is already happening, especially for small and medium-sized growers with less capacity to absorb margin compression and invest in orchard renewal. In Brazil, the response will likely depend much more on improving productivity through technology and better management than on government intervention. Climate change is intensifying pest pressure, water stress and production volatility across citrus-growing regions. How should breeding programmes, crop protection strategies and orchard management evolve over the next decade to build genuine resilience rather than simply reacting to successive crises? In perennial crops such as citrus, technological solutions take time, often more time than the urgency of the current problems would require. For that reason, resilience over the next decade will depend not only on new genetic or crop protection technologies, but also on better technical decisions at farm level. Key decisions such as where to plant, which varieties and rootstocks to use, and which management strategy to adopt will become increasingly important under higher pest pressure, greater water stress and more volatile production conditions. In this context, specialised technical guidance plays a major role in helping growers make better decisions and avoid costly mistakes. In Brazil, citrus consultants have contributed significantly to grower decision-making under HLB pressure and climatic uncertainty. I am part of a citrus consulting group called GCONCI, which brings together 18 specialists and has helped producers define planting strategies, varietal choices and management practices. In my view, this type of technical support will be increasingly important in building resilience in citrus production.  Looking ahead to 2035, do you believe HLB will still be managed as a chronic production constraint, or are we approaching a scientific breakthrough—through gene editing, RNA technologies, advanced bactericides or resistant rootstocks—that could permanently redefine the future of global citrus production? By 2035, I believe HLB will still be a major chronic constraint in citrus production, with limited supply and continued market volatility. At the same time, I do believe we are moving closer to innovations that can make an important difference in the future. Brazilian citrus has already overcome major phytosanitary challenges such as citrus variegated chlorosis and citrus sudden death, both of which once appeared highly threatening to the industry. HLB is more destructive than any of these previous diseases, but the scale of effort now being mobilised by researchers, growers, consultants and the industry is also much greater. In my view, the key word is cooperation. The combination of scientific research, field experience, investment and coordinated action gives reason to believe that meaningful progress will occur. Whether that progress will be fully transformative by 2035 is still uncertain, but I believe the chances of important breakthroughs are real. -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4303/why-hydroponics-needs-more-than-technology-to-scale.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4303/why-hydroponics-needs-more-than-technology-to-scale.html Mon, 20 Jul 2026 14:30:55 +0530 Brio Hydroponics' FOCO (Franchise-Owned, Company-Operated) model represents an ambitious attempt to reimagine commercial agriculture by combining land ownership, technology, infrastructure, and professional farm management within a single operating framework. Under the model, franchise partners invest in hydroponic infrastructure on a minimum 30-acre land parcel, while Brio assumes end-to-end responsibility for cultivation, operations, market access, and supply chain management—transforming farming into a professionally managed, performance-driven enterprise. The most compelling interviews are those that challenge ideas rather than celebrate them. That is the premise of this conversation with Pravin Patel, Founder & Chairman of Brio Hydroponics. Instead of accepting hydroponics as the inevitable future of agriculture, the discussion rigorously examines the business model behind it—its economic viability, governance framework, capital intensity, execution risks, and long-term scalability. The questions are designed not to endorse a narrative, but to test its resilience against commercial and operational realities. Patel's responses encourage readers to look beyond the technology and explore a larger shift, where agriculture is increasingly shaped by infrastructure, institutional capital, and disciplined execution. Whether or not one agrees with the proposition, this interview provides a thoughtful framework for understanding how the business of farming is evolving—and what it will take for that evolution to succeed. Asset-Class Innovation or Rebranding Does Brio's FOCO model represent a genuine asset-class innovation in agriculture, or is it primarily a rebranding of managed farmland investment under agritech terminology? The Honest Answer: It Is Both — and Neither Fully The FOCO model occupies a genuinely new structural space in Indian agriculture. It cannot be fairly dismissed as a rebrand of managed farmland, nor can it claim to be an entirely new financial instrument disconnected from its agricultural roots. The honest characterization is that FOCO is a hybrid infrastructure-operations-investment platform that borrows from managed farmland thinking but restructures the economic engine in a fundamentally different way. Here is where FOCO diverges meaningfully from conventional managed farmland investment: What makes it structurally different: The productive asset is not the land — it is the infrastructure built on it. Traditional managed farmland derives value from soil quality, location, water rights, and appreciation. FOCO's value is derived from the climate-controlled hydroponic structures, operational systems, crop planning, and market access built on top of the land. Land in FOCO is the substrate, not the asset. Returns are linked to yield density, not land appreciation. FOCO targets 25–30 per cent net returns through operational productivity — six to eight harvest cycles per year, 28+ premium crop varieties, and integrated supply chain access — not through passive land value appreciation over a holding period. Operations are centralized under a specialist operator. Managed farmland typically involves land management, tenancy, or leasing to farmers. FOCO involves Brio deploying proprietary CEA (Controlled Environment Agriculture) technology, managing crop calendars, running input procurement, and maintaining buyer relationships as a professional agricultural operator. Investor participation has a defined performance framework. FOCO includes transparent reporting, buyback mechanisms, staged investment structures, and structured yield sharing — closer to an operating partnership than a passive landholding. Where the comparison to managed farmland does hold: Land is still central; a 30-acre owned plot is the precondition for the model Long-duration commitments mean investors are exposed to site-specific constraints Biological production remains the underlying revenue source — there is no technology that fully eliminates agricultural operating variables The Asset-Class Argument For institutional framing purposes, FOCO is best positioned as yield infrastructure — a category closer to operational infrastructure assets (think toll roads, renewable energy parks) than to passive farmland. The return driver is operating performance and asset utilization, not land scarcity or appreciation. As India's hydroponics market grows from $ 263 million in 2024 toward a projected $ 2,227 million by 2035 at a CAGR of 21.43 per cent, the FOCO model is well-positioned to become a legitimate standalone category within India's alternative asset landscape — but only if it consistently demonstrates operational performance over time, not just structural elegance. "Any model that substitutes agritech language for agricultural substance will eventually be exposed by its own yields. FOCO has to be justified by what comes out of those net houses — crop quality, market realization, and investor returns — not by what it is called, " says Pravin Patel, Founder & Chairman, Brio Hydroponics. Sustainability of 25–30 per cent Net Returns How sustainable are projected 25–30 per cent net returns in hydroponic farming when benchmarked against input volatility, energy dependency, and price discovery in fresh produce markets? The Return Thesis: Plausible, Not Guaranteed Projected net returns of 25–30 per cent are grounded in a legitimate operational logic, but their sustainability depends on how well five key variables are managed: crop mix, realized selling prices, energy costs, infrastructure utilization, and execution consistency across production cycles. What Supports the Return Thesis The economics of hydroponics at commercial scale are structurally different from traditional farming in ways that genuinely support elevated returns: Revenue density: Six to eight production cycles per year per acre, versus one to two cycles for most open-field crops, means the same land and infrastructure generates five to six times more crop output annually Crop premium: Leafy greens, exotic herbs, coloured capsicums, cherry tomatoes, and specialty cucumbers command 30–60 per cent premiums over equivalent open-field produce in organized retail and HORECA channels Input efficiency: 90 per cent water savings, reduced pesticide use, and minimized soil amendment costs lower the variable cost base relative to comparable outdoor production Year-round production: Elimination of weather-driven seasonal gaps removes the revenue voids that suppress annual returns in traditional farming . Brio's Unnati park is structured to produce more than 2,000 tonnes of high-value vegetables annually, with Vexotics retail stores targeting 100 outlets by March 2027 providing a direct premium market channel that bypasses intermediary margin erosion. The Honest Range At optimized operations with strong market access, 25–30 per cent net returns are achievable and have been demonstrated in Brio's operational portfolio. At full competitive maturity — when CEA supply in premium urban catchments increases — a more conservative sustainable floor of 18–22 per cent net IRR is the range most consistent with comparable infrastructure asset performance in India. The headline projection is realistic in Year 1–5; returns may compress in Year 6–10 as the sector matures, but should remain significantly above open-field agriculture equivalents on a risk-adjusted basis. "Twenty-five to thirty percent returns are not the outcome of speculation; they are the outcome of crop planning, infrastructure utilization, and disciplined execution. But like any serious business, the return is earned through operational performance, not promised by the model alone ," says Pravin Patel, Founder & Chairman, Brio Hydroponics. Counterparty Risk in Company-Operated Agriculture To what extent does centralized "company-operated" agriculture introduce counterparty risk for investors, particularly in long-duration FOCO land commitments? Counterparty Risk Is Real — and Manageable Centralization is the FOCO model's greatest strength and its primary risk concentration point. By consolidating crop planning, input procurement, operations, buyer relationships, and financial reporting under one operator, the model reduces investor complexity but transfers decision-making authority entirely to the company. In long-duration land commitments, this creates a genuine counterparty dependency. Where Counterparty Risk Accumulates Operational dependence: Investors rely on Brio for feasibility execution, crop calendar discipline, infrastructure maintenance, yield quality, and buyer management. If any of these links weakens, the investor has limited direct ability to intervene. Revenue realization dependence: The investor's return is determined by what Brio sells, at what price, through which channels. Unlike public market investments, there is no daily price discovery or liquidity signal. Long-duration commitment exposure: FOCO requires land commitment for multi-year periods. If the operator underperforms during this window, exit options may be limited, and recovery of capital may depend on operator goodwill and contractual enforcement. Governance gaps: For smaller investors not protected by institutional-grade contracts, the absence of independent board oversight, third-party audit rights, and performance escrow mechanisms can leave them exposed. What Mitigates This Risk Brio's model incorporates several counterparty risk mitigation features that, when properly structured, substantially reduce investor exposure: Transparent reporting: Regular operational and financial updates with crop performance data Buyback mechanisms: Structured exit options for investors on agreed timelines Third-party feasibility: Independent project viability assessment before capital deployment Proven track record: Enterprise clients including Adani Group and Welspun Group, and 11+ years of operational history, provide credibility that reduces execution uncertainty Institutional partnerships: Linkages with IFFCO and Anand Agricultural University add institutional oversight dimensions The Governance Imperative For any investor — retail, family office, or institutional — the FOCO model's counterparty risk is manageable in proportion to the quality of the legal documentation governing the relationship. A robust FOCO agreement should specify: crop performance benchmarks, reporting cadence, audit rights, breach remedies, exit pathways, force majeure provisions, and performance-linked compensation structures. Without this contractual architecture, centralized operations can become the single largest risk in the structure. "FOCO removes day-to-day complexity for the investor, but that also means the operator must earn trust every single day. Counterparty risk is not addressed through marketing language — it is addressed through reporting discipline, contractual clarity, and proven execution on the ground " , says Pravin Patel, Founder & Chairman, Brio Hydroponics Electricity Price Resilience Is hydroponics at scale economically resilient enough to withstand fluctuations in electricity pricing, given its heavy reliance on controlled-environment infrastructure? Energy Is the Hidden Variable in CEA Economics Controlled Environment Agriculture systems depend on pumps, fertigation networks, climate management systems (including fans, cooling, and humidity control in Indian conditions), lighting supplements, and monitoring infrastructure. This makes electricity a structurally embedded input cost that cannot be fully avoided, unlike in open-field farming. The economic question is therefore not whether power costs affect returns — they do — but whether the productivity premium of CEA is sufficient to absorb realistic power price variability. The Resilience Case The argument for resilience rests on three structural foundations: Productivity leverage: The revenue-per-unit-of-energy in CEA is significantly higher than in comparable energy applications because every kilowatt is supporting a high-value productive cycle. A premium-crop hydroponic system generating Rs 25–35 lakhs per acre annually can absorb moderate energy cost increases without catastrophic margin damage, provided other cost elements are well managed. Solar integration: Brio's site designs incorporate scope for solar power integration, which can reduce grid energy dependency by 40–60 per cent and substantially insulate operations from utility tariff escalation. For long-duration FOCO commitments, solar PPAs or on-site generation become an essential margin protection tool. Operational scheduling: Unlike open-field farming, CEA systems offer flexibility in scheduling energy-intensive operations during off-peak tariff hours, enabling active energy cost management that traditional farmers cannot access. Where Resilience Has Limits If electricity prices in a given state rise sharply — as has occurred in several Indian states due to fuel cost pass-through and supply constraints — the impact on thin-margin crop categories within a CEA portfolio can be material. Parks with high dependence on temperature control in extreme-heat states like Gujarat and Rajasthan during summer months face peak energy load at exactly the time grid tariffs are highest. The practical answer is that hydroponics at scale is conditionally resilient to electricity fluctuation — resilient when solar integration, energy-efficient infrastructure design, and operational scheduling are embedded from day one, and vulnerable when energy is treated as an afterthought. "Climate control gives us production certainty, but energy discipline gives us margin certainty. A hydroponic park that does not plan its power economics carefully is not building a resilient business; it is building avoidable volatility into its own cost structure , " says Pravin Patel, Founder & Chairman, Brio Hydroponics Solving Inefficiencies or Shifting Risk Does the FOCO model fundamentally solve agricultural operational inefficiencies, or does it shift traditional farming risks — climate, market, logistics — into corporate execution risk? Both — and That Is Precisely the Point The FOCO model does solve several of the most damaging structural inefficiencies in Indian agriculture: fragmented expertise, inconsistent crop planning, unpredictable weather exposure, weak post-harvest systems, and disconnected buyer relationships. It addresses these by centralizing them under a professional operator with CEA technology, market tie-ups, and systematized operations. But solving these problems does not eliminate risk — it transforms the nature of risk. The Risk Transformation Thesis The FOCO model is most accurately described as a risk transformer, not a risk eliminator. It converts diffuse, unmanageable risks (monsoon, soil degradation, smallholder fragmentation) into concentrated, manageable risks (operator execution, energy costs, market channel performance). That transformation has genuine value because corporate execution risk is, in principle, more measurable, more governable, and more addressable than weather or smallholder fragmentation. The critical implication for investors is that evaluating a FOCO investment is not primarily about evaluating Indian agricultural risk — it is about evaluating Brio's operational capability, governance standards, track record, and management depth. That is a fundamentally different due diligence question. "FOCO does not pretend that agriculture becomes risk-free. What it does is replace unpredictable risks like weather and fragmented operations with disciplined, measurable execution risk — and that is a far more manageable foundation for building scale, " says Pravin Patel, Founder & Chairman, Brio Hydroponics Valuation Logic vs. Farmland and REIT Structures How does the valuation logic of FOCO-managed hydroponic parks compare with traditional farmland appreciation and REIT-like agricultural investment structures? FOCO-managed hydroponic parks should be valued primarily as operating yield assets using a discounted cash flow framework applied to projected produce revenues, factoring in infrastructure capex, operating costs, and the residual value of structures at end of useful life. Key valuation inputs include: Revenue per acre per year: Rs 25–35 lakhs at optimal operations Operating margin: 40–48 per cent at 100-acre industrial scale Capex per acre: Rs 35–65 lakhs depending on scale and specification Infrastructure useful life: 15–20 years with maintenance Exit or residual value: Transferable to next operator, upgradeable, or partially liquidated as scrap infrastructure The FOCO model does not currently offer the liquidity, regulatory oversight, or secondary market pricing of a REIT structure. However, its return profile and asset characteristics make it a natural candidate for aggregation into an Agri-InvIT (Infrastructure Investment Trust) framework — a pathway that, if executed, would bring FOCO returns under SEBI-regulated governance and open them to pension, insurance, and sovereign wealth capital. "Traditional farmland is valued for what it is. A hydroponic park must be valued for what it can consistently produce. That shift — from static appreciation to operating yield and execution capability — is the foundation of a completely different investment conversation.", says Pravin Patel, Founder & Chairman, Brio Hydroponics Water Savings as Economic Advantage Can water savings of up to 90 per cent in hydroponic systems be meaningfully translated into net economic advantage once capital expenditure and maintenance costs are fully factored in? Yes — With Important Conditions Water savings of up to 90 per cent in hydroponic systems compared to traditional open-field cultivation are real and documented. In closed-loop nutrient delivery systems, water is recirculated rather than lost through soil percolation, surface evaporation, and runoff, enabling the same productive output with a fraction of the water volume. The economic question is whether this saving justifies — or contributes meaningfully to offsetting — the elevated capital and maintenance costs of CEA infrastructure. Direct Economic Value of Water Savings The direct saving from reduced water consumption is modest in isolation. In most Indian agricultural contexts, water itself is not the primary cost driver — it is availability, extraction cost, and supply reliability that matter. In water-stressed states like Gujarat, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, and Telangana, however, the economics change materially: Bore well drilling and maintenance costs in depleted aquifer zones are rising sharply Water purchase costs for irrigation in drought years can represent 8–15 per cent of total production cost for some crops Regulatory limits on groundwater extraction are tightening in several states, potentially forcing reductions in open-field irrigated acreage In these contexts, a 90 per cent water saving translates not just into direct cost avoidance but into production continuity that open-field operators cannot guarantee — which is a strategic economic advantage, not merely an efficiency metric. The Broader Economic Argument The stronger economic case for water efficiency is as an enabler, not just a saver: Site viability: Hydroponic parks can operate in regions where traditional farming is water-constrained, expanding the addressable geography for premium crop production Regulatory future-proofing: As India tightens water usage norms, hydroponic operators face less regulatory risk and lower compliance costs ESG premium: Institutional investors, international buyers, and sustainability-aligned capital increasingly value water efficiency as a material factor — unlocking premium market positioning and potentially lower cost of capital The Full Economic Accounting When capital expenditure and maintenance are fully factored in, water savings alone do not justify the FOCO model. Water efficiency becomes economically meaningful as one of several compounding advantages — alongside multi-cycle productivity, premium crop access, and climate resilience — that together justify the capex premium over open-field alternatives. "Ninety percent water saving is not just an environmental number — it is an economic buffer. In regions where water is becoming scarce, unreliable, or expensive, efficiency is no longer a sustainability add-on. It becomes a site selection advantage and a long-term cost moat " , says Pravin Patel, Founder & Chairman, Brio Hydroponics Scalability Constraints What are the scalability constraints of high-density hydroponic parks in India, particularly in relation to land aggregation, regulatory frameworks, and urban proximity to markets? Scalability Is Real but Not Frictionless The FOCO model's minimum land requirement of 30 acres for a franchise site, combined with the capital commitment for hydroponic infrastructure development, immediately defines the addressable developer pool. This is not a mass-market entry product — it is designed for landowners, land aggregators, family office investors, and institutional developers who can meet these prerequisites. That narrows the scale pathway compared to a model that can begin with 1–2 acres. Key Scalability Constraints Land aggregation: Assembling 30+ acres of contiguous or near-contiguous land near urban demand centers is challenging in states with fragmented smallholder ownership patterns. In Gujarat, Maharashtra, and Telangana, large contiguous plots near highways and consumption corridors exist but require active aggregation or direct engagement with large landowners. FPO-led aggregation is an emerging mechanism but still early-stage. Urban proximity: Premium fresh produce has a logistics window of four to six hours from harvest to retail shelf for optimal quality. This means hydroponic parks must be located within 50–80 km of significant Tier-1 or large Tier-2 urban centers. This constraint limits viable sites to specific geographic corridors and prevents replication in remote or interior geographies regardless of land availability. Energy infrastructure: Reliable three-phase power supply with sufficient load capacity is essential for CEA operations. In semi-urban and peri-urban locations near demand centers, grid reliability and sanctioned load can be bottlenecks that require upfront investment in dedicated feeder lines or captive solar generation. Skilled labor: CEA operations require trained technical personnel for monitoring, maintenance, and crop management. In areas outside existing training infrastructure — which currently centers on Gujarat — this creates a labor constraint that slows replication speed. Regulatory framework: There is no single unified national regulatory framework for protected cultivation or hydroponic parks. State-level land use classifications, construction permits for large greenhouse structures, water extraction norms, packhouse approvals, and export certification requirements vary significantly across India. Navigating this patchwork adds time, complexity, and legal cost to every new site. The Optimal Replication Strategy Rather than attempting uniform national rollout, the most resilient scaling approach is cluster-based geographic expansion — establishing 10–25-acre nodes within 50–80 km of identified demand centers, scaling up to larger parks as market absorption is proven. Clusters around Ahmedabad, Mumbai, Pune, Hyderabad, Bengaluru, and Jaipur represent the first wave of viable expansion corridors. "Hydroponic parks can scale in India, but not everywhere and not in the same way. Success depends on the right combination of land readiness, market proximity, and operational infrastructure. Scale comes from disciplined site selection — not from forcing a template onto every geography " , says Pravin Patel, Founder & Chairman, Brio Hydroponics Financialized Agriculture — Risk or Evolution? Does the FOCO model signal a structural shift toward "financialized agriculture," where crop production becomes secondary to structured yield products for investors? A Legitimate Structural Evolution — With a Warning The FOCO model does represent a move toward more financialized agriculture — and that is not inherently negative. Agriculture has historically been under-served by formal capital markets precisely because it lacked the structural clarity, predictable cash flows, and governance frameworks that investors require. FOCO addresses this by layering investment design, structured return expectations, and professional operations onto agricultural production, making it accessible to capital that could not previously engage with farming on manageable terms. Where Financialization Adds Value Capital mobilization: Structured investment frameworks bring private and institutional capital into agricultural infrastructure at a scale that government schemes and rural banking cannot match alone Operational discipline: Investor expectations of transparent reporting and defined returns impose performance discipline on operations that informal farming models rarely experience Market integration: Financial structuring forces integration with organized buyer channels — retail, export, HORECA — which elevates the entire value chain Risk professionalisation: Centralized operator responsibility creates accountability for agricultural performance that dispersed smallholder systems do not Where Financialization Becomes a Risk The risk emerges when the investment narrative becomes more important than the production reality. If FOCO-style models prioritise investor acquisition over crop performance, if return projections are set to attract capital rather than to reflect agricultural viability, or if the complexity of structured investment products obscures weak operational fundamentals, then financialization has gone too far. India's agri-investment history has cautionary examples — most notably the managed plantation sector of the 1990s and early 2000s, where structured investment products attracted significant retail capital but collapsed when production economics proved unsustainable. The FOCO model must avoid this pattern by maintaining production performance as the non-negotiable foundation of its investor proposition. The Right Balance The healthy version of financialized agriculture is one in which investment structures enable and strengthen agricultural production — providing capital for infrastructure, creating incentives for operational excellence, and connecting farmers and operators to markets they could not access alone. Brio's FOCO model sits closer to this productive end of the spectrum because its return thesis genuinely depends on crop output, buyer realization, and infrastructure utilization. But the risk of drift — toward packaging over substance — is real and must be actively managed. "Investor capital should strengthen agriculture, not distract from it. In our model, finance is the enabler, but production performance is still the foundation. If the crop does not work, the structure does not work — and no amount of financial engineering changes that truth " , says Pravin Patel, Founder & Chairman, Brio Hydroponics. ----- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com)           ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4281/syngenta-bets-on-ai-to-become-agricultures-predictive-intelligence-partner.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4281/syngenta-bets-on-ai-to-become-agricultures-predictive-intelligence-partner.html Wed, 15 Jul 2026 15:34:37 +0530 Artificial intelligence is rapidly reshaping agriculture, but its true value lies not in replacing agronomic innovation—it lies in making every farm decision smarter, faster and more precise. In an exclusive interview with AgroSpectrum, Feroz Sheikh, Chief Information and Digital Officer, Syngenta, and Kiran Joseph, IT & Digital Enablement Lead – Europe, Syngenta, explain how AI is redefining the company's role from a provider of seeds and crop protection solutions to a trusted predictive intelligence partner for farmers. They discuss the strategic significance of Syngenta's collaboration with ANNAM.AI, India's potential to become a global innovation hub for AI-enabled agriculture, and why data-driven intelligence will be as transformative as the next generation of seeds and biologicals. The conversation also explores how hyperlocal forecasting, multilingual advisory and responsible data governance can help farmers navigate increasing climate volatility while building trust in digital agriculture. As AI moves from pilot projects to large-scale deployment, the executives argue that success will depend on integrating technology seamlessly into farmers' daily decision-making rather than adding complexity. They also share why India's diverse farming systems offer the ideal environment for developing AI solutions that can eventually be replicated across Africa, Southeast Asia and other smallholder markets. The interview provides a forward-looking perspective on how AI could become as indispensable to farming as seeds, fertilizers and irrigation in the decade ahead. Syngenta has traditionally been associated with seeds, crop protection and agronomic innovation. How do you see artificial intelligence transforming Syngenta’s role—from an input provider to a predictive intelligence partner for farmers? Feroz considers AI increasingly helpful in enriching the nature of the relationship Syngenta has with farmers, positioning the brand from being a company that sells products at specific moments in the season to one that’s continuously helping farmers make better decisions. Now, with the kind of data Syngenta has from genomics to field performance to weather and satellite data, the company can use AI to turn all of that into predictive, real-time insights. So instead of just recommending a product, Syngenta now helps a farmer anticipate pest outbreak, optimize planting or spraying windows, or even manage climate risks before they impact yield. This approach is hyper-local, dynamic, and personalized down to the field level. So overall, AI is helping Syngenta strengthen its personal relationships with farmers and bringing to life the vision of ‘breakthroughs for every farmers in every field’. India is home to more than 600 million people whose livelihoods are linked to agriculture. What makes the ANNAM.AI partnership strategically important for Syngenta’s long-term vision in one of the world's most complex agricultural markets? India is a highly diverse ecosystem with millions of smallholder farmers, different agro-climatic zones, and extreme unpredictability in climate volatility. The partnership with  ANNAM.AI will help build the foundation of a national, open, AI-driven agricultural intelligence platform, backed by government, academia, and technology players, designed to deliver hyperlocal, real-time, multilingual advisory at scale. " For Syngenta, being a strategic partner in this ecosystem is significant because it allows us to plug our deep digital and agronomic expertise into an expansive infrastructure. We’re excited to be part of the core intelligence layer that is powering decision-making for millions of Indian farmers", says Kiran. "By contributing through our knowledge base that we’ve built through these years, we are helping build predictive capabilities that can transform the Indian agricultural space. It gives us reach, relevance, and trust, because the platform is designed to provide free, accessible intelligence, meeting farmers where they are, in their language and context ", he added. The future of agriculture is increasingly being shaped by data. In your view, what will create more value for farmers over the next decade: new biological and chemical innovations, or AI-driven decision intelligence? I don’t see this as one or the other or having to choose between the two. Breakthroughs in seeds, crop protection and biologicals will continue to define what’s possible on the farm, but the reality is that most of that potential is still not fully realized in day-to-day farming because external factors are so dynamic and unpredictable. According to Feroz, this is where AI-driven decision intelligence will come in to help farmers make better, more precise choices in real time based on weather, soil, crop stage and risk factors. Many AI initiatives in agriculture generate impressive pilots but struggle to scale. What are the key ingredients required to translate AI research into measurable productivity gains at the farm level? To me, the first ingredient is high-quality, integrated data that is reliable at field level. Next is embedding AI into the actual workflow of farmers and agronomists, not expecting them to adapt to technology, but ensuring the technology fits seamlessly into how decisions are already made in the field. Equally important is moving from insights to action, because farmers eventually benefit from clear, timely recommendations. Another key ingredient is scalability by design, where platforms are built to operate across crops, regions and varying levels of digital maturity rather than being optimized for a single use case. " Finally, success depends on strong integration between digital, R&D and commercial teams, because AI cannot sit in isolation ", states Feroz. When these elements come together, AI stops being a pilot and starts becoming an effective engine to drive agricultural progress. Climate volatility is becoming a defining challenge for global food production. How can AI-powered forecasting and heat-stress intelligence help farmers move from reactive crisis management to proactive risk mitigation? What’s really changing today is how farmers deal with uncertainty. What AI is doing now is helping farmers see risks coming before they become problems. Think of AI-powered forecasting as moving from a general weather report to something that is much more personal to your farm. That makes a huge difference, because timing is everything in agriculture. " Heat stress is a great example. There are certain moments, like flowering in maize or wheat, when heat can really hurt yields. AI can pick up those trends and warn the farmer in advance", Feroz opines. So instead of reacting after the crop shows stress, the farmer can act earlier maybe irrigate a bit sooner, adjust input use, or even change practices to protect the crop. Over time, this starts changing behavior. Farmers begin planning ahead. It builds confidence too, because decisions are backed by evidence, not just experience or instinct. As AI becomes more central to agricultural decision-making, concerns around data ownership, transparency and trust are growing. How does Syngenta envision a responsible framework for managing farmer data while driving innovation? If AI is going to play a bigger role in farming, then trust becomes absolutely non-negotiable. At Syngenta, the way we think about it is quite straightforward that a farmer’s data belongs to the farmer. Any digital system we build must respect that from day one. That means being very clear about what data is being collected, why it’s being collected, and what value the farmer gets in return. There can’t be any ambiguity. Syngenta has strong governance around data privacy - around how data is stored, protected, and potentially shared across the ecosystem. That includes working with partners, governments, and platforms to ensure standards are consistent. " Innovation will only scale if farmers feel safe participating in it ", says Feroz. Syngenta operates across vastly different agricultural systems worldwide. Could India emerge as a global innovation laboratory for AI-enabled agriculture, with solutions developed here being exported to other markets? From a Syngenta perspective, smartphone and internet penetration in India brings a huge opportunity. Diversity in field sizes, complexities in regions and diverse weather conditions mean we need to co-create solutions in India that are not just technically sound, but also practical and usable at scale. And once they’re proven here, many of those learnings can be exported to regions where smallholder systems face similar challenges. " So, I strongly believe India can move from being just a large market to being a true innovation engine for global agriculture, especially in AI-led solutions. The ANNAM.AI partnership is a perfect example - solutions co-created for Indian complexity that can inform our approach in Africa, Southeast Asia, and beyond", opines Feroz. You have described ANNAM.AI as an opportunity to build a transformative digital foundation for Indian agriculture. What does that future look like in practical terms, and how close are we to a world where AI becomes as indispensable to farming as seeds, fertilizer or irrigation? The future we’re building with ANNAM.AI is about making AI quietly present in every important farm decision, without making it complicated for the farmer. In practical terms, it could look like a farmer starting their day with a simple app that tells them what matters most today, for example, maybe there’s a heat stress risk in the next few days, maybe pest pressure is building, or maybe it’s the right time to apply a certain input. It’s not overwhelming them with data, it’s guiding them with clarity. Over time, this becomes the way-of-farming for them. The system understands the farm better season after season - the soil, the weather patterns, the crop choices and keeps improving its recommendations. " We’re very close to this ambition. What’s still evolving is scale, accessibility, and trust. Initiatives like ANNAM.AI are important because they bring all of that together - technology, local relevance, and farmer-centric design" , opines Kiran. " If we get it right, AI won’t feel like a separate layer. It will simply become part of a farmer’s routine - and that's when we know we've delivered a real breakthrough", he added. -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com)   ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4270/climate-adaptation-must-move-from-risk-mitigation-to-investment-opportunity-across-apac.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4270/climate-adaptation-must-move-from-risk-mitigation-to-investment-opportunity-across-apac.html Tue, 14 Jul 2026 14:47:21 +0530 As climate change accelerates, the investment conversation is rapidly shifting from mitigation alone to building resilience against increasingly frequent physical risks. Yet climate adaptation remains one of the most underfinanced segments of sustainable investing, particularly across Asia, where the need for resilient agriculture, infrastructure and water systems is growing more urgent. In this exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Norbert Ling, Head of Fixed Income Portfolio Management, Asia Pacific, Invesco, explains why adaptation is emerging as a critical consideration in portfolio construction and long-term risk management. He also explores how innovative debt instruments can unlock private capital for adaptation projects while highlighting the barriers that continue to limit large-scale investment. As investors increasingly assess resilience alongside returns, climate adaptation is poised to become an important pillar of future capital allocation strategies. From an investor’s perspective, what are the biggest barriers preventing climate adaptation and resilience from becoming a mainstream asset allocation theme in Asia? Investor approaches to climate adaptation and resilience are evolving, shaped by differences in mandates, risk exposures, investment horizons, geography and data availability. For some investors, adaptation is primarily viewed through the lens of portfolio risk management, with a focus on reducing exposure to climate-vulnerable assets and enhancing portfolio resilience. Others are increasingly identifying opportunities where adaptation investments can generate attractive risk-adjusted returns through improved operational efficiency, enhanced productivity or new sources of revenue. However, several barriers continue to limit climate adaptation from becoming a mainstream investment theme across Asia. One of the biggest challenges is the absence of standardized frameworks to measure adaptation outcomes and financial performance. Unlike climate mitigation, where carbon emissions provide a relatively common metric, adaptation benefits are often location-specific and materialize differently across sectors and geographies. This makes it difficult for investors to compare projects, assess risks consistently and build scalable investment portfolios. Another challenge is that many adaptation solutions are highly context-specific and localized. Whether it involves water-efficient agriculture, resilient infrastructure or coastal protection, each project requires a deep understanding of local climatic, regulatory and socio-economic conditions. Consequently, many opportunities remain relatively small in scale, making them less attractive for institutional investors seeking larger ticket sizes and diversified portfolios. The commercial viability spectrum also varies significantly. Some adaptation projects have clear and predictable cash flows, while others deliver broader social and environmental benefits that are difficult to monetize. This creates a financing gap where concessional or blended finance may be required before private capital can participate at scale. Strengthening project pipelines, improving adaptation-related data and developing investable financial structures will therefore be critical in mobilizing institutional capital across Asia. How can fixed income and debt instruments be structured to support climate adaptation projects, particularly in agriculture and infrastructure? Debt instruments have an important role to play in scaling climate adaptation because they provide a disciplined financing mechanism while ensuring accountability for the deployment of capital. One of the most effective approaches is the use-of-proceeds structure, where funds are earmarked specifically for clearly identifiable climate adaptation and resilience projects, supported by transparent reporting and measurable key performance indicators. These instruments can channel capital directly to project developers or through financial institutions that extend loans to businesses, farmers and infrastructure developers undertaking climate adaptation initiatives. For agriculture, this could include investments in climate-resilient irrigation systems, precision farming technologies, drought-resistant crop varieties or sustainable water management. In infrastructure, financing may support flood-resilient transport networks, climate-proof urban infrastructure, resilient energy systems or nature-based solutions that reduce physical climate risks. Commercial viability remains fundamental because debt financing ultimately depends on the borrower's ability to generate sufficient cash flows to service interest payments and repay principal. This discipline encourages the development of adaptation projects with robust business models while providing investors with greater confidence in the long-term sustainability of the investment. Looking ahead, innovative financing structures such as sustainability-linked bonds, resilience bonds, blended finance mechanisms and credit enhancement facilities could further expand the market by improving risk-return profiles and attracting greater participation from institutional investors. These instruments can help bridge the financing gap between public objectives and private capital while supporting the development of a more mature climate adaptation investment ecosystem. Looking ahead, how do you see climate adaptation becoming integrated into broader portfolio risk management strategies across APAC? Climate adaptation is increasingly becoming an integral component of portfolio risk management rather than a standalone sustainability consideration. Climate risk stress testing is already embedded within our regular portfolio risk review process, helping us assess the potential impact of both acute climate events and long-term physical climate risks across different asset classes and geographies. This enables us to better understand portfolio vulnerabilities and incorporate climate considerations into investment decision-making. Beyond quantitative stress testing, we are placing greater emphasis on evaluating the climate adaptation strategies of sovereigns, companies and financial institutions as part of our broader credit assessment framework. We consider how effectively issuers are preparing for physical climate risks, managing operational resilience and allocating capital toward adaptation measures, as these factors are becoming increasingly financially material over the long term. As climate impacts intensify across the Asia-Pacific region, adaptation will likely become more deeply embedded within investment analysis, sector allocation and capital deployment decisions. Investors will increasingly differentiate between companies that proactively strengthen resilience and those that remain exposed to escalating climate risks. This shift is expected to influence credit quality, valuations and long-term investment performance. At the same time, we see significant investment opportunities emerging from businesses that provide solutions enabling climate adaptation. Companies operating in areas such as resilient agriculture, water management, climate-resilient infrastructure, environmental technologies and digital climate intelligence are well positioned to benefit from increasing public and private investment across APAC. As policy support strengthens and investment frameworks mature, climate adaptation is likely to evolve from being primarily a risk management consideration into an increasingly important source of long-term investment opportunity. ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4269/global-market-will-be-won-by-whoever-can-unleash-most-reliable-dairy-decisions-at-lowest-integration-cost-anand-mahurkar-founder-ceo-findability-sciences.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4269/global-market-will-be-won-by-whoever-can-unleash-most-reliable-dairy-decisions-at-lowest-integration-cost-anand-mahurkar-founder-ceo-findability-sciences.html Tue, 14 Jul 2026 14:35:12 +0530 Discussing the launch of LactaAI , Mahurkar argues that dairy processors need AI systems capable of translating fragmented plant data into real-time operational actions that improve yield, reduce energy consumption, and accelerate decision-making. He explains how the platform’s proprietary AI Factory architecture and industry-specific intelligence can unlock annual value ranging from Rs 2.35 crore to Rs 28.2 crore per plant, while integrating seamlessly with existing ERP, MES, SCADA, and plant systems. The conversation also explores AI adoption on the factory floor, the future of outcome-based industrial AI, and Findability Sciences’ global ambitions as it takes LactaAI from India to major dairy markets worldwide. Your claim that dairy plants “do not need more dashboards” challenges a crowded industrial analytics space. What fundamentally differentiates LactaAI from existing AI and Industry 4.0 solutions, and why hasn’t this problem been solved effectively until now? Dashboards describe. AI Factories decide. That is the difference, and it sits at the centre of everything LactaAI does.  After fifteen years and meaningful capital, the industrial analytics space has converged on a familiar pattern: collect telemetry, surface it on a dashboard, and leave the plant manager to figure out what to do with it. The result is what the industry now openly calls dashboard fatigue. Operators have more visibility than ever, and exactly the same decisions to make.  LactaAI starts from a different premise. We treat the dairy plant as an AI Factory, an environment that produces decisions the way a power plant produces electricity. Each decision is tied to a specific outcome: a yield gain, an energy unit saved, a quality deviation prevented, a changeover shortened. The platform is closed-loop by design. It ingests operational data, computes a recommendation, routes it to the person who can act, and then measures what actually happened.  Two reasons the problem has not been solved before. The industrial analytics market has been dominated by horizontal Industry 4.0 platforms that are deep in operational technology plumbing but shallow in dairy physics and biochemistry. They digitise signals; they do not understand the difference between fat recovery in a separator and SNF loss in evaporation. The commercial models of legacy vendors reward dashboards over decisions, because a dashboard scales as a license while a decision requires ownership of an outcome. We accept that ownership.  Dairy plants generate massive volumes of data that often go unused. What are the core technical and organizational barriers that prevent this data from translating into decisions, and how does LactaAI overcome both? Two layers of friction sit between data and decisions in dairy. Both are structural, not aspirational.  The technical layer first. Data lives across SCADA, MES, ERP, LIMS, IoT gateways, and laboratory notebooks. Each system has its own schema, its own time signature, and its own owner. Plant historians capture telemetry at one cadence, ERP captures transactions at another, LIMS captures test results at a third. Joining these into a unified picture of a single batch or a single shift is non-trivial. Add legacy PLCs on proprietary protocols, and a meaningful fraction of operational data never reaches a place where a model can reason about it.  The organizational layer is the harder one. Even when data is consolidated, recommendations stall. Operators do not trust outputs they cannot interrogate. Plant managers do not have a closed-loop feedback mechanism to verify whether an AI suggestion actually moved the metric it claimed. Ownership of the outcome remains diffuse between IT, OT, quality, and operations.  LactaAI addresses both. The platform sits on our I-CUPP architecture, which unifies the data layer before any model touches it, so the AI reasons over a coherent operational picture rather than fragments. On top of that, our Business Process Co-Pilot embeds each recommendation into the systems operators already use, with a transparent rationale, an accountable owner, and a measured outcome. The decision and its consequences are bonded.  Industrial environments are notoriously resistant to change. How do you ensure adoption among plant operators and decision-makers who may be skeptical of AI-driven recommendations, especially in high-risk production settings? Operator adoption is earned, not assumed. Three principles guide how we earn it.  First, we deploy as a Co-Pilot, not an autopilot. Every recommendation comes with the reasoning behind it in plain plant language, the variables it considered, and a confidence band. The operator remains the decision-maker. This matters because in a high-risk production setting, the person closest to the asset must retain authority.  Second, we sequence the decisions. We begin with high-confidence, low-risk recommendations where the operator can verify the outcome quickly, such as CIP cycle optimization or boiler load scheduling. Trust accumulates. Only once a track record is established do we move to higher-leverage decisions like composition-aware standardization or fat-recovery setpoints.  Third, we localise. Our interfaces run in the languages operators actually speak. In India that means Marathi, Hindi, Gujarati, Kannada, and Tamil. The recommendation is useless if the operator has to translate it. Training materials and onboarding are built around the working vocabulary of shift supervisors and floor leads, not corporate slide decks.  The result is that operators move from skepticism to ownership within a few weeks of go-live, because they see the platform working with them rather than around them. LactaAI integrates with legacy systems like ERP, MES, and SCADA without requiring replacement. What were the biggest engineering challenges in achieving this interoperability, and how do you handle data inconsistencies across systems? Interoperability with legacy systems is the single hardest engineering problem in industrial AI. Dairy plants run a cocktail of vintages: SAP or Oracle ERP from the 2010s, Wonderware or Siemens SCADA, custom MES, LIMS from a half dozen vendors, and OEM-controlled PLCs that sometimes predate the people running them.  Our approach has three layers. At the bottom, a protocol adapter layer that speaks OPC-UA, Modbus, MQTT, and the vendor-specific protocols that matter in dairy. We read before we write. In the first phase of every deployment, we are a non-intrusive observer; we do not push setpoints back into the control system until governance and trust are in place.  In the middle, the unification layer, which is the U in I-CUPP. This is where data inconsistencies are resolved: entity resolution across systems that use different identifiers for the same batch or SKU, time synchronization across instruments with drift, unit normalization, and semantic harmonization so that what one system calls fat percentage and another calls FAT_PCT become the same field.  At the top, the decision layer, which is where the AI Factory runs. By the time models see the data, it is coherent and reliable.  The biggest engineering challenges were time-series at scale, particularly hot-cold tiering for plants generating millions of tag-seconds per day, and reconciling real-time streams with batch-loaded reference data without compounding errors. We solved them by treating the unification layer as a first-class product, not a connector marketplace.  Dairy processing varies widely—from fluid milk to complex whey derivatives. How scalable is LactaAI across different product categories, and what customization is required for each segment? Dairy looks like one industry from the outside and a dozen sub-industries from the inside. Fluid milk, butter, ghee, paneer, cheese, milk powders, condensed milks, whey derivatives, infant nutrition, ice cream, fermented products. Each has its own process flow, its own quality regime, and its own economic drivers.  What scales across all of them is the I-CUPP architecture. The way we collect, unify, process, and present data is invariant to product category. What customises per category is what sits on top: the process model, the BOM derivation logic, and the decision packs that encode the levers that matter for that product.  We have built a library of pre-configured process models for the major dairy segments. For a fluid milk plant, the high-value decisions cluster around standardization, route optimization, and shelf-life prediction. For a milk powder plant, around evaporator and dryer thermal efficiency, particle size control, and lactose crystallization windows. For cheese and paneer, around culture management, syneresis control, and ageing. For whey, around membrane fouling and protein recovery.  The customization required for a new segment is the process model and the decision pack, not the platform. Typically a new segment takes us six to ten weeks from first engagement to first production decisions.  India is the launchpad, but dairy is a global industry. How do you see LactaAI competing internationally, particularly against established industrial AI players, and what markets are you targeting next? Our near-term international roadmap targets the United States first, where our Chicago go-to-market is engaging the top-25 processors and where the consolidation of the industry into a small number of large producers makes the unit economics attractive. Australia and New Zealand follow, with channel work underway into the Fonterra ecosystem and the broader Oceania industry. Japan is open through our SoftBank relationship, with strong specialty dairy and functional nutrition demand. Latin America is the natural next step from our existing presence in adjacent agri-industrial categories.  The global market will not be won by whoever has the largest platform. It will be won by whoever can produce the most reliable dairy decisions at the lowest cost of integration.   --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com)   ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4268/business-case-for-agricultural-drones-is-moving-beyond-spraying.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4268/business-case-for-agricultural-drones-is-moving-beyond-spraying.html Mon, 13 Jul 2026 14:19:52 +0530 Every technological revolution begins with a simple question: what changes first—the tool or the system? In Indian agriculture, drones are rapidly moving beyond being flying machines to becoming the intelligence layer that could redefine how food is grown, financed and traded. But will they truly democratise precision farming for millions of smallholders, or simply deepen the technological divide between those who can access data and those who cannot? As policymakers push for an indigenous drone ecosystem, the real contest is no longer about hardware—it is about ownership of agricultural intelligence and the future of farm economics. The answers will shape not just productivity, but India's competitiveness in the global agri-tech race. In an exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Agnishwar Jayaprakash, Founder and Director, Garuda Aerospace, explains why drones are evolving from operational tools into strategic agricultural infrastructure with far-reaching implications for credit, insurance, sustainability and food security. If India's next Green Revolution is intelligence-driven rather than input-driven, this conversation offers an early glimpse into what that future could look like. India's agricultural transformation has historically been driven by breakthroughs in seeds, irrigation and crop protection. Do you see drones emerging as the next foundational agricultural infrastructure, and what economic indicators would convince you that India has crossed that threshold? Every major agricultural transformation has been enabled by infrastructure that helped farmers produce more with fewer resources. I believe drones have the potential to become the next foundational layer of agricultural infrastructure because they bring precision, speed, and data-driven decision-making directly to the farm. Today, drones are helping farmers optimize the use of water, fertilizers, and crop protection products while reducing labour dependency and improving operational efficiency. As agriculture faces few challenges, drones are evolving from a productivity tool into a necessity for sustainable farming. The real tipping point will be when drone services become as commonplace as tractors or irrigation systems. For India, this will largely happen through a Drone-as-a-Service model, making advanced technology accessible even to small and marginal farmers. The economic indicators that would signal India has crossed that threshold include widespread adoption of drone-based spraying and crop monitoring, profitable rural drone service businesses, integration of drone data into crop insurance and agri-credit systems, and drones becoming a standard component of farm operating expenses. When these markers become mainstream, drones will no longer be viewed as an emerging technology; they will be recognized as critical agricultural infrastructure driving India's next phase of agricultural growth and productivity. Much of the conversation around agricultural drones focuses on operational efficiency. But can drones fundamentally alter farm economics by improving decision quality? In your view, what is the long-term value of intelligence generated by drones compared to the immediate value of spraying and surveillance services? While operational efficiency is often the most visible benefit of agricultural drones, I believe their greatest long-term value lies in the intelligence they generate. Spraying and surveillance deliver immediate gains through reduced costs, improved precision, and faster operations. However, data-driven decision-making has the potential to fundamentally reshape farm economics. Drones enable farmers to move from reactive to predictive agriculture. By providing real-time insights on crop health, pest infestations, nutrient deficiencies, water stress, and field variability, they empower farmers to make more informed decisions about when, where, and how to intervene. This not only optimizes input usage but also helps improve yields and enhance overall profitability. Over time, the value of this intelligence will far exceed the value of any single drone operation. Drone-generated data can support precision farming, strengthen crop insurance assessments, improve access to credit, and enable more accurate farm advisory services. As AI and analytics become more integrated into agriculture, drones will serve as the primary data collection layer powering smarter farming ecosystems. In the long run, I see drones evolving from being tools that perform tasks to platforms that enable better decisions. Spraying creates operational efficiency for a season; intelligence creates compounding value over multiple seasons. That is where the true transformation of agriculture will occur. India remains one of the world's most fragmented agricultural markets, dominated by smallholder farmers. Does this structural reality limit the scalability of drone technologies, or could it actually create a unique innovation model that differs from large-scale farming economies such as the United States and Brazil? India's smallholder farming ecosystem is one of the biggest opportunities for drone innovation anywhere in the world. Rather than limiting scalability, it is encouraging the development of business models that are more inclusive, accessible, and suited to the realities of modern agriculture. India's model is increasingly being powered by shared services, FPOs, cooperatives, and rural drone entrepreneurs. This enables even small and marginal farmers to benefit from advanced drone technology without significant upfront investment. What makes this particularly exciting is that India is building a drone ecosystem that prioritizes reach and impact. By leveraging Drone-as-a-Service models, we can bring precision agriculture to millions of farmers, improve productivity, optimize resource usage, and create new livelihood opportunities in rural areas. In many ways, India's agricultural structure is shaping a uniquely Indian blueprint for drone adoption; one that combines technology, entrepreneurship, and accessibility. If successful, it has the potential to become a model for agricultural economies across the developing world. As agricultural drones become increasingly sophisticated, are we witnessing the evolution of a new category of farm machinery, or are drones better understood as data platforms that happen to fly? How should agribusiness leaders think about this distinction? Agricultural drones are evolving beyond the traditional definition of farm machinery. While they perform critical operational tasks such as spraying, monitoring, and surveying, their true value lies in their ability to generate actionable intelligence that enables better decision-making across the agricultural value chain. Agribusiness leaders should view drones as both a productivity tool and a data platform. The operational benefits deliver immediate value through greater efficiency, precision, and resource optimization, while the data collected helps drive smarter decisions around crop health, input management, risk assessment, and yield improvement. As agriculture becomes increasingly technology-driven, the ability to capture and analyze real-time field data will become just as important as the ability to execute farm operations. Drones sit at the intersection of these two capabilities, making them a powerful enabler of modern agriculture. There is a growing policy emphasis on indigenous drone manufacturing. However, true technological sovereignty extends beyond assembly to critical components, software and analytics. Where does India currently stand on that spectrum, and what are the most strategic vulnerabilities that still need to be addressed? India has made remarkable progress in building a domestic drone ecosystem over the last few years. What is particularly encouraging is that the conversation has evolved from simply assembling drones to developing end-to-end capabilities across design, manufacturing, software, and drone applications. However, technological sovereignty is a journey, not a destination. True self-reliance requires strength across the entire value chain; from airframes and flight-control systems to sensors, communication technologies, AI-powered analytics, and advanced components. While India has built strong momentum in indigenous manufacturing and software development, there is still significant opportunity to deepen capabilities in certain high-value and specialized technologies. The focus now should be on accelerating research and development, strengthening component manufacturing, fostering deeper industry-academia collaboration, and nurturing a robust innovation ecosystem that can compete globally. Equally important is building intellectual property within India and creating globally competitive products that are designed, developed, and manufactured domestically. The combination of supportive policies, a vibrant startup ecosystem, growing demand, and strong engineering talent gives us a unique opportunity to emerge as a global hub for drone innovation. The next phase will be about moving from adoption and manufacturing to leadership in core technologies, software, and advanced analytics that define the future of the industry. Agriculture is increasingly being shaped by climate volatility, resource scarcity and input inefficiencies. How do you see drones contributing to the broader transition from input-intensive farming to intelligence-intensive farming, and what evidence are you seeing of that shift already taking place? Agriculture is undergoing a fundamental shift; from relying primarily on higher inputs to relying on better insights. As farmers face increasing challenges from climate variability, resource constraints, and rising production costs, the ability to make precise, data-driven decisions is becoming critical. This is where drones are playing a transformative role. Drones enable farmers to monitor crop health, identify stress factors, assess field conditions, and apply inputs with far greater precision than traditional methods. Instead of adopting a one-size-fits-all approach, farmers can make targeted interventions based on real-time field intelligence, helping optimize the use of water, fertilizers, and crop protection products while improving productivity and sustainability. In the long run, I believe drones will serve as a critical intelligence layer for agriculture. Their greatest contribution will not simply be automating farm operations, but enabling smarter decisions that help farmers become more resilient, productive, and sustainable in an increasingly complex agricultural environment. Precision agriculture promises to optimize every drop of water, gram of fertilizer and millilitre of crop protection product. Yet adoption often lags expectations. Is the primary challenge technological, economic, behavioural or institutional, and how should the industry address it? The challenge is not technological, today's precision agriculture solutions have already demonstrated their ability to improve efficiency, productivity, and sustainability. The real opportunity lies in accelerating adoption through greater awareness, accessibility, and ecosystem collaboration. For many farmers, adopting new technologies requires clear evidence of value and ease of access. This is why demonstration-driven adoption, farmer education, and service-based delivery models are so important. When farmers can see tangible improvements in productivity, input optimization, and cost savings, adoption follows naturally. At the same time, industry, policymakers, agri-institutions, and technology providers must work together to build a supportive ecosystem that simplifies access to precision agriculture solutions. Initiatives focused on skilling, rural entrepreneurship, and last-mile service delivery are already helping bridge this gap. The focus now should be on scaling access and demonstrating impact at the farm level, because when farmers experience the value firsthand, adoption becomes a natural outcome. Many emerging technologies create value not by replacing labour, but by augmenting human decision-making. In the context of Indian agriculture, do you see drones as labour-saving tools, productivity-enhancing tools, or knowledge-enabling tools—and which of these ultimately offers the greatest economic value? I see drones as all three; labour-saving, productivity-enhancing, and knowledge-enabling tools; but their greatest long-term value lies in enabling better decisions. The first wave of drone adoption in agriculture has understandably focused on efficiency. Drones help farmers save time, reduce labour dependency, and apply inputs with greater precision. These benefits deliver immediate economic value and are important for improving farm operations. However, the bigger opportunity lies in the intelligence layer. Drones generate real-time insights on crop health, pest outbreaks, nutrient deficiencies, and field variability, allowing farmers to make more informed and timely decisions. In an environment where climate uncertainty, resource constraints, and input costs are increasing, the quality of decisions can have a greater impact on outcomes than the quantity of inputs used. This is why I believe knowledge-enabling capabilities will ultimately create the greatest economic value. Labour savings and productivity gains are important, but they are often incremental. Better decision-making has a compounding effect; it improves resource efficiency, reduces risk, enhances yields, and strengthens farm profitability over multiple seasons. The future of agriculture will be driven not just by mechanisation, but by intelligence. Drones are uniquely positioned at the intersection of both, making them one of the most transformative technologies for the sector. Agricultural data is rapidly becoming a strategic asset. As drone-generated datasets grow in scale and sophistication, who will ultimately capture the greatest value—the farmer, the technology provider, agri-input companies, insurers, financial institutions, or food companies? The greatest value should; and ultimately will; accrue to the farmer. Drone-generated data has the potential to create value across the entire value chain. Agri-input companies can develop more targeted solutions, insurers can improve risk assessment, financial institutions can make more informed lending decisions, and food companies can strengthen traceability and supply-chain efficiency. What makes drone data particularly powerful is its ability to create a shared intelligence layer across the agricultural ecosystem. When used responsibly, it can align incentives among stakeholders and enable more efficient decision-making from farm to market. Over the long term, I believe the most successful models will be those that treat data as a tool for collaboration rather than ownership. The organizations that create the most value will not necessarily be those that collect the most data, but those that transform data into actionable insights that benefit farmers and strengthen the broader agricultural ecosystem. As agriculture becomes increasingly data-driven, the real opportunity lies in ensuring that intelligence flows back to the farmer, because a more informed farmer ultimately creates value for every participant in the value chain. If India succeeds in deploying drones at scale, what could be the second-order effects on agricultural supply chains, credit access, crop insurance, sustainability reporting and carbon markets? Are we underestimating the broader economic implications of drone adoption? We are only beginning to understand the broader economic impact that drones can have on agriculture. While the current focus is largely on spraying, monitoring, and operational efficiency, large-scale drone adoption has the potential to create far-reaching benefits across the entire agricultural ecosystem. As drones generate high-quality, real-time field data, they can bring greater transparency and visibility to agricultural supply chains. This can improve traceability, strengthen quality assurance, and enable more informed decision-making from farm to market. Drone-generated insights can also support more accurate risk assessment for lenders and insurers, helping improve access to credit and enabling faster, data-driven crop insurance processes. For farmers, this could translate into better financial inclusion and reduced uncertainty. From a sustainability perspective, drones can help measure and optimize the use of water, fertilizers, and crop protection products, creating a stronger foundation for sustainability reporting and environmental compliance. As carbon markets and climate-focused agricultural programs evolve, reliable field-level data will become increasingly important for monitoring outcomes and validating impact. The larger opportunity is that drones can become a digital intelligence layer connecting agriculture, finance, sustainability, and supply chains. When that happens, their value will extend far beyond farm operations and contribute to a more efficient, transparent, and resilient agricultural economy. The global drone industry is increasingly converging with artificial intelligence, robotics and autonomous systems. How should Indian agribusinesses prepare for a future where farm operations are increasingly automated, predictive and data-driven rather than reactive and manual? The future of agriculture will be increasingly defined by intelligence, automation, and predictive decision-making. As drones, AI, robotics, and data analytics converge, agribusinesses will need to evolve from managing farm operations to managing agricultural intelligence. The first step is to view technology not as a standalone tool, but as a strategic capability. Agribusinesses that invest early in digital infrastructure, data-driven processes, and technology adoption will be better positioned to improve productivity, optimize resources, and respond to changing market and environmental conditions. Equally important is building a culture that embraces innovation. The future farm will rely on real-time data, predictive insights, and automated interventions. Organizations must therefore focus on developing digital skills, strengthening partnerships with technology providers, and creating systems that can effectively translate data into action. Farmers, agronomists, and agribusiness leaders will continue to be at the center of decision-making, but they will be supported by technologies that make those decisions faster, more precise, and more informed. Those who begin preparing today for a more connected, automated, and intelligence-driven agricultural ecosystem will not only improve operational efficiency but also gain a significant competitive advantage in the years ahead. The future belongs to organizations that can combine human expertise with technological intelligence to create more resilient, productive, and sustainable agricultural systems. Looking ahead a decade, what will distinguish countries that merely use agricultural drones from those that genuinely derive strategic advantage from them? In that future, what role do you envision India—and Garuda Aerospace—playing in the global agricultural technology landscape? Over the next decade, the distinction will not be between countries that have drones and those that do not; it will be between countries that use drones as tools and those that integrate them into a broader agricultural intelligence ecosystem. India is uniquely positioned to be one of those leaders. With one of the world's largest agricultural sectors, a rapidly growing drone ecosystem, supportive policy frameworks, and a strong talent base in technology and engineering, India has the opportunity to create a globally relevant model for precision agriculture at scale. What makes this particularly significant is that India's innovations are being designed for accessibility, affordability, and impact; qualities that are highly relevant to agricultural economies around the world. At Garuda Aerospace, our vision is to contribute to this transformation by building indigenous drone technologies and enabling large-scale adoption of precision agriculture solutions. We see ourselves not just as a drone manufacturer, but as a technology company helping accelerate the transition toward smarter, data-driven farming. As agriculture becomes increasingly intelligence-led, our goal is to help position India as a global hub for agricultural drone innovation; developing solutions that improve farmer outcomes, strengthen food systems, and demonstrate how technology can drive sustainable agricultural growth at scale. -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com)   ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4244/fishings-digital-reckoning.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4244/fishings-digital-reckoning.html Thu, 09 Jul 2026 13:43:42 +0530 For decades, commercial fishing has remained one of the world's least digitised food production systems, operating largely on instinct beneath an invisible ocean surface. That era is beginning to end. In this interview, Inga Wise, Executive Director, SAFET and Tom Rossiter, Co-founder and CEO, CatchCam make the business case for treating underwater data as a strategic asset—one that can simultaneously improve operational efficiency, reduce environmental risk, strengthen supply-chain credibility and unlock new commercial value. As climate volatility reshapes fish stocks and buyers demand unprecedented levels of traceability, real-time marine intelligence is emerging as a competitive differentiator rather than a technological novelty. The conversation also challenges investors to look beyond conservation and recognise ocean data as the foundation of the next wave of blue economy innovation. If precision agriculture transformed farming, precision fisheries may well redefine the future of global seafood. For decades, commercial fishing has operated with limited visibility beneath the waterline. How is access to real-time underwater data changing the economics of fishing, and what new competitive advantages does it create for operators? Inga Wise: Today, real-time underwater data is changing the economics of fishing, helping operators to plan with precision and turning sustainability into a driver of profitability. At SAFET, we see this data-driven transformation creating a range of distinct competitive advantages across three areas: operational efficiency, precision catch, and market access and transparency. Ultimately, underwater data from companies like CatchCam is helping to accelerate innovation, allowing both small-scale and industrial fleets to optimize their gear. Today, technology has the power to transform sustainability from a regulatory burden into a measurable, profit-driving strategy and competitive edge. Tom Rossiter: For example, compact, ruggedized cameras like CatchCam give fishers immediate visibility into gear behavior on the seabed. Skippers can adjust  gears on the go and avoid wasting a multi-hour, fuel-heavy blind and unproductive fishing time. On the topic of precision catch, access to underwater data lets operators see what is entering their nets before hauling. If non-target species are detected, fishers can alter depth, trigger release mechanisms, or shift locations — ensuring hold capacity is filled exclusively with high-value, legal catch. Market access and transparency is particularly important today, as global retailers and consumers are demanding verifiable proof of sustainable fishing. Operators leveraging underwater data and electronic monitoring gain an immediate market advantage. This data allows fishers to seamlessly qualify for premium eco-labels and secure lucrative contracts that command higher dockside prices. The agriculture sector has embraced precision farming, while logistics relies heavily on real-time analytics. Do you see fisheries entering a similar era of precision decision-making, and what role does underwater intelligence play in that transition? Tom Rossiter: Commercial fishing has seemingly been the exception to the modern data revolution we’ve seen play out across the agricultural sector and logistics teams. Fishers have had to deploy expensive gear into an underwater black box, relying on a "tow and see" strategy. With the help of underwater intelligence, we are finally seeing an uptick in precision fishing. Underwater intelligence — and the technology that supports it — is the foundational data layer that allows us to manage the ocean with the same granularity that a farmer manages a field. Instead of treating a massive body of water as a uniform, hidden zone, technology can now map out exact behavioral and environmental variables at the point of catch, transitioning the industry from reactionary management to predictive, live-action precision. For instance, it enables micro-spatial resource management. Fish gather based on local currents, seabed topography, and temperature structures amongst other factors. Underwater data from CatchCam cameras and sensors allows crews to overlay comprehensive intelligence with these metrics, helping operators identify the exact boundary lines where target species thrive and non-target species decline. This intelligence also enables automated catch accountability. Capturing clear data beneath the surface opens the door for automated species identification and size-grading before the fish ever hit the surface. This creates a record that can feed real-time quota tracking and dynamic marine spatial planning as well as provide valuable data to the market, reducing waste and adding value to the catch. Ocean data has traditionally been collected for scientific research and conservation. How can marine data be transformed into commercially actionable intelligence that improves profitability, operational efficiency and risk management for seafood businesses? Inga Wise: Scientific research and conservation have built an important foundation for ocean data. The next step is to make that data useful for day-to-day fishing decisions as well, turning broad marine knowledge into practical, tailored intelligence that helps businesses improve profitability, efficiency, and risk management. Tom Rossiter: Through our work at CatchCam, we’ve seen that this commercial transformation is well underway. Marine data is quickly redefining paths to profitability and operational efficiency through gear optimization. Small- to large-scale fisheries use underwater intelligence and technology to save on fuel and to qualify for premium labels, higher prices, and lucrative contracts. In terms of fuel savings, if a net is distorted or towed through an empty zone, they can adjust immediately, maximizing catch and minimizing wasted fuel. This data is also turning risk management from a guessing game into a visual science. For example, bycatch is an enormous economic risk that threatens quota closures and regulatory penalties. Near-real-time underwater insights allow operators to identify what species are entering their gear before pulling it up. This intelligence lets fishers make better informed decisions on the fly, protecting local ecosystems while ensuring hold capacity is filled only with legal, premium target catch. As seafood supply chains face increasing scrutiny around sustainability, traceability and ESG performance, do you foresee underwater monitoring data becoming a critical business asset rather than simply a compliance tool? Inga Wise: Yes. This transformation is already well underway. Like land-based corporate supply chains, the availability of more granular, more accurate data enables better operational and strategic decision making. Where the data might have started as a compliance exercise, the insights it gives into costs and efficiency are becoming embedded in planning and delivery. This turns tightening international traceability and sustainability standards into an enabling tool for competitive advantage. Tom Rossiter: From our vantage point at CatchCam, underwater monitoring data is becoming a critical validator of commercial integrity — especially at a time when greenwashing can devastate a brand. Major international retailers and seafood distributors are actively restructuring their procurement strategies around verifiable and reliable data streams. Having visual and sensor-driven evidence of what happens at the point of catch acts as a necessary digital lever for the seafood industry. For fisheries, this data fundamentally alters corporate risk management. Having real or near real time data available allows the fishers to avoid scenarios where their activity creates an unintentional negative impact. This could be seabed damage, unwanted bycatch or simply unproductive fishing. Avoiding or minimising these is essential in modern food production. In addition, the fisheries are generating exceptionally high resolution data on what is happening in the seas and this will improve understanding for managers and lead to wider societal benefits. Climate change is altering fish migration patterns, ocean temperatures and ecosystem dynamics. How can data-driven insights help fisheries adapt to growing environmental uncertainty while maintaining economic viability? Inga Wise: In the past, managers and operators relied on stationary, predictable patterns, expecting certain species to be in specific places at the same time of year. Today, rapidly changing ocean conditions can cause stocks to move. At SAFET, we believe high-quality data can help fishers and fisheries managers respond to change and plan ahead. By using technology and reliable information, we can build a clearer picture of how the ocean is changing. This helps the industry protect fish stocks and marine habitats while still supporting profitable fishing. Instead of relying mainly on past experience, fishers can make better decisions using accurate information at the time they need it. Tom Rossiter: Fishermen have always sought to work in the most productive area. In the past there has been a rhythm to fishing that was for the most part predictable. Many of these patterns have now broken down and it is more difficult to find the fish. Many fishers are now using localized surface and increasingly subsurface data to guide the fishing activities. It’s also important to note that environmental instability brings significant biological stress to marine ecosystems, causing unexpected fluctuations in feed and predators as well as target catch. Fit for purpose data collection can help map these changes and predict where they will occur in the future, Data-driven insights essentially convert fishing vessels into responsive labs. The value of data often lies not in collection but in interpretation. What advances in artificial intelligence and analytics are most likely to unlock the next generation of commercial insights from underwater observations? Inga Wise: Across marine technologies, artificial intelligence and computer vision can help fishers and fisheries teams get more value from the data they already collect. These tools can quickly highlight useful moments in long video recordings, giving crews, analysts, and managers clearer information to support faster, better-informed decisions. Tom Rossiter: Machine learning algorithms trained on underwater camera and sensor data have changed what’s possible — instantly flagging anomalies like unexpected species interactions, gear fouling, or signs of stock stress that would previously have been buried in hours of footage. We saw this firsthand in our SeaFrame project, where AI-powered computer vision automated video analysis and significantly reduced review time. By identifying moments of interest with pinpoint accuracy, the software ensures that critical information is not lost in the flood of data collected by underwater technologies. The challenge is to link this to relatable activities for the fishers and here AI is also helping too as we move to presenting the insight in a familiar plotter view for the skippers. Investors are increasingly interested in the blue economy, yet ocean technologies still attract far less capital than sectors such as agritech or climate tech. What are investors overlooking about the commercial potential of marine intelligence platforms? Tom Rossiter: In addition to lack of awareness, we’ve seen that the investment community is largely underestimating the extreme operational inefficiencies that threaten the blue economy. Agritech soared because optimizing a tractor's path yielded clear aggregate returns. Commercial fishing operates on a far steeper, but lesser-known curve. When a vessel uses hardware-enabled intelligence to eliminate blind tows, for example, it directly slashes fuel burn and prevents potentially catastrophic bycatch. The hardware is merely a mechanism for actionable data streams, which then build incredibly valuable customer — and investor — relationships. Looking ahead five to ten years, could ocean data become as strategically important to seafood companies as consumer data is to retailers or operational data is to manufacturers? What might that future industry landscape look like? Inga Wise: At SAFET, we already see ocean data as very important. Our work with regional fisheries and governments has shown how useful it can be. What is changing now is how the seafood industry uses that data, it is no longer only for research or meeting regulations. It is helping businesses make better plans and decisions. Over the next five to ten years, we expect fishing to become less reactive and more planned. Instead of vessels going out and looking for fish with limited information, data could help them understand where the best fishing opportunities are before they leave port. This is similar to how retailers use customer data to predict demand and manage stock. That data layer won’t stop at the surface. We see it deeply integrating into global supply chains, where seafood brands deliver not just a product, but a complete digital record of every catch. Tom Rossiter: Fishing is food production and the advancements in operational efficiency we see in agriculture or manufacturing are open and available to fishing operators too albeit it is more challenging given the sheer number of variables and the difficulty is monitoring and understanding them. We envision fleets operating as synchronized digital networks rather than isolated vessels, with cameras and sensors continuously synthesizing data on temperatures, currents, and species behaviors to chart surgical, micro-spatial harvesting paths. If the twentieth century was defined by humanity's ability to map the land and the twenty-first by our ability to digitise industries, will the next frontier be the digitisation of the oceans — and how will that reshape global food production, marine sustainability and the blue economy? Inga Wise: We are certainly headed in that direction. We like to say that we are living through the “Fourth Industrial Revolution at Sea,” moving from an era of blind resource extraction to digital, transparent, and data-led ocean stewardship. Better ocean data can play an important role in protecting the climate and improving food security and livelihoods. By using technology below the surface, we can understand what is happening at sea more clearly. This can help fishers avoid unwanted catch, reduce damage to habitats, and show evidence of better fishing practices. For the wider blue economy, this makes marine conservation more practical. It can become a useful tool that helps fishers of all sizes make better decisions on the water. Tom Rossiter: From the CatchCam perspective, digitizing the ocean is fundamentally an operational revolution. The twentieth-century approach of dragging nets and hoping for the best won’t cut it in a world of volatile fuel prices and shifting fish migrations. Looking ahead, subsurface intelligence — interconnected across fleets — will predict high-yield zones and drive efficiency across global food production, maximizing catch-per-unit-effort. What we're really building is a foundation for ocean stewardship at scale, where every data point makes the next harvest smarter and more accountable. -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com)     ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4235/india-can-become-global-exporter-of-livestock-genetics-ashish-khandelwal-on-indigenous-embryo-transfer-breakthrough.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4235/india-can-become-global-exporter-of-livestock-genetics-ashish-khandelwal-on-indigenous-embryo-transfer-breakthrough.html Wed, 08 Jul 2026 15:15:00 +0530 Leads Genetics' indigenous embryo transfer programme is more than a technological milestone—it signals India's growing ambition to build world-class bovine genetics through domestic capabilities and global scientific collaboration. By combining advanced IVF, genomics and embryo transfer technologies with indigenous breeds such as Gir and Sahiwal, the initiative addresses the long-standing challenge of improving dairy productivity without compromising genetic resilience. The partnership with Brazil's Embrapa also reflects an important shift towards international knowledge exchange in livestock breeding. AgroSpectrum has further explored the significance of this breakthrough through an exclusive interview with Ashish Khandelwal, Director, Leads Genetics, on the programme's scalability, commercial viability and its long-term impact on India's dairy economy. The real measure of success, however, will lie in translating these laboratory breakthroughs into scalable, affordable solutions that improve farmer incomes and strengthen India's dairy value chain. Defining a National Milestone: This is being positioned as India’s first large-scale indigenous embryo transfer programme—what makes this breakthrough structurally different from previous efforts in cattle breeding and genetics? Leads Genetics has break through success in genome technology by setting up an integrated R&D centre for Indigenous Cattle Genetics & Genomics in Bareilly. It is not just a scientific achievement, but as a systemic breakthrough. For long, genome technology or any efforts in embryo transfer were largely government initiatives or were in a very limited scale. For the first time, Leads Genetics has brought three things together, a private-sector-led Centre of Excellence with world-class IVF, Pathology, and Genomics laboratories, a structured programme with success metrics, and a tripartite international collaboration involving Embrapa (Brazil’s state-owned agricultural research institution under MAPA), Fazenda Floresta and Leads Genetics. The results are for everyone to see. In the first phase we have already witnessed successful IVF treatment on 116 cows with a 70 per cent success rate. In the second phase we have expanded this to 160 Gir, Sahiwal, and HF cross cows. What started as a pilot model has become a scalable model. From Pilot to Scale. Achieving a 70 per cent IVF success rate at this scale is significant—what were the key scientific, operational, or infrastructure factors that enabled this level of efficiency? The scale of IVF success is a defining moment for Indian dairy. This was made possible due to advancements in reproductive technologies like IVF and embryo transfer. This will accelerate India’s journey toward becoming a global leader in per-cow dairy productivity and livestock genetics. However, there were some key challenges. The first one was donor selection. We ensured high-genetic-merit Gir donors, including superior germplasm imported from Brazil, were only used. This gave us a strong genetic foundation to work with. The second challenge was that of having a world class laboratory infrastructure. For this we created an Integrated R&D Centre right from scratch. It had the state-of-the-art IVF-ET, Pathology, and Genomics capabilities. Also, the equipment and protocols had to meet international standards, not just Indian benchmarks. The third was operational discipline. We have to ensure synchronised protocols across hormone treatments, OPU (Ovum Pick-Up) procedures, fertilisation windows, and embryo transfer timing. Any deviation would have an adverse impact on the success. Economics of Genetic Transformation. How does embryo transfer at scale translate into tangible economic gains for dairy farmers, particularly in terms of yield improvement and return on investment? The economics of this successful program is at two levels. The first one is at an individual farmer level and the second one is at enterprise level. At an individual farmer level, the primary value will be in the form of step-change in milk yield per animal. Farmers can expect 3X increase in milk yield with our breeds. However, the actual outcome would depend on farm management and ecosystem support. A margin of 50 per cent -70 per cent increase in yield would be of great economic importance for farmers. Higher-genetic-merit Gir and Sahiwal cattle are known for their disease resistance and easily adapt to Indian climatic conditions compared to exotic crossbreeds. As a brand we are conscious in making sure that the economics improve not both revenue and cost side as well. We have to democratise access to large farms and as well as small farmer through cooperative models and government partnerships. Indigenous Breeds vs. Crossbreeding Debate. With a strong focus on Gir and other indigenous breeds, how do you see this initiative reshaping the long-standing debate between indigenous genetics and high-yield crossbreeds? Historical data tells us that the crossbreeding route, particularly with Holstein Friesian genetics, has given us short-term productivity but it came at a cost like increasing vulnerability to tropical diseases, heat stress, declining fertility rates, and a gradual erosion of our indigenous breed population. However, we have seen that Gir and Sahiwal, Red Sindhi breeds carry genetic traits that have been shaped by thousands of years of evolution in the Indian subcontinent. This is a valuable asset that cannot be replaced. Our IVF and embryo transfer technology allows us to unlock the productivity potential of indigenous breeds scientifically. There was no doubt on whether our breeds could be productive, it was always about whether we had the technology to realise our potential. Technology as a Force Multiplier. To what extent can IVF and embryo transfer realistically accelerate India’s per-cow productivity, and what are the bottlenecks to scaling this nationwide? There is no doubt that our IVF and embryo transfer will boost India's per-cow productivity is enormous. But we must be mindful of the challenges and the opportunities. Natural breeding produces one calf per cow per year but IVF-based OPU-ET can potentially yield 20–30 embryos per superior donor annually. This a huge opportunity for us. The compounding impact on national herd quality would be transformative. The main challenge is having skilled veterinary manpower, cold chain and logistics infrastructure for embryo transport, and recipient cow management. All these are critical for transfer success and it requires a framework for armer education and last-mile support. At Leads Genetics we see ourselves as change agent not just creating technology but an entire system through training and partnerships. Role of Global Collaboration. This programme involves collaboration with Brazil’s Embrapa—how critical is international scientific cooperation in advancing India’s livestock genetics ecosystem? The scientific knowledge transferred through this collaboration was as valuable as any piece of equipment we installed. India and Brazil share similar agro-climatic conditions and also a common ancestry in Zebu cattle genetics. Being Brazil's state-owned agricultural research institution, Embrapa represents decades of scientific work on Gir and Zebu breeds. This has transformed Brazil from a net importer of genetics to a global exporter. The partnership reflects a strategic significance of India's livestock sector and the credibility we have built. International scientific cooperation of this nature is unprecedented in India. Infrastructure and Replicability. The Centre of Excellence plays a central role—what investments and ecosystem support are required to replicate this model across other dairy clusters in India? The Centre of Excellence in Bareilly is not just a significant investment but reflects our firm commitment towards building physical infrastructure, scientific talent, and building protocols that are suited for Indian conditions. To replicate this across key states like Gujarat, Punjab, Rajasthan, or Maharashtra requires a carefully crafted integration programme. India is a diverse country and different regions have different breed priorities, different agro-climatic conditions, and different dairy ecosystem structures. It cannot be copied it has to adapted. However, what can be done is standardising things like laboratory protocols, training curriculum for veterinary staff and creating a data system for tracking outcomes. Also, one key factor would be government support through National Livestock Mission and Rashtriya Gokul Mission. Long-Term Vision for India's Dairy Sector. Looking ahead, how do you see advanced reproductive technologies shaping India’s position in the global dairy and livestock genetics landscape over the next decade? Our Centre of Excellence can create a paradigm shift in India’s dairy sector. Strangely, we are the world's largest milk producer but still our per-cow productivity ranks among the lowest globally. We have to solve this over the next decade. Advanced reproductive technology is the most powerful lever for us. We have to build a nationally networked livestock genetics infrastructure. Also, India has the potential to become a significant player in the global livestock genetics market. Our indigenous breeds like Gir and Sahiwal are now attracting interests from Africa, Southeast Asia, and the Middle East. We are on the right track and India could transition from being an importer of livestock genetics knowledge to being a credible exporter of both genetics and expertise. This is our vision as well. -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com)   ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/reports-white-papers/91/4230/why-indias-fertiliser-security-can-no-longer-be-separated-from-energy-security.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/reports-white-papers/91/4230/why-indias-fertiliser-security-can-no-longer-be-separated-from-energy-security.html Tue, 07 Jul 2026 13:06:21 +0530 For decades, agricultural strategy rested upon a reassuring trinity of land, water, and seeds. It was a stable geometry of governance, almost Euclidean in its simplicity, upon which the grand architecture of food security was assumed to rest. However, history has a mischievous habit of adding footnotes in geopolitical ink. The Russia–Ukraine war offered, in effect, a masterclass in the weaponisation of agricultural interdependence. When conflict disrupted exports from two of the world's foremost suppliers of wheat, corn and sunflower oil, global grain markets convulsed with almost theatrical immediacy. Food prices soared to historic highs, import-dependent nations scrambled to secure supplies, and agricultural commodities were transformed from mundane items of trade into instruments of strategic leverage. A regional war, in remarkably short order, metastasised into a global inflationary contagion. The Red Sea crisis provided a second, equally sobering lesson. Attacks on commercial shipping along one of the world's most vital maritime arteries forced vessels to abandon the Suez Canal and undertake the far longer voyage around the Cape of Good Hope. Transit times stretched, freight costs ballooned, insurance premiums surged, and supply chains—carefully calibrated over decades of globalisation—began to fray. What first appeared to be a shipping disruption soon revealed itself as an agricultural cost shock by another name. The Strait of Hormuz crisis, however, goes a step further. It exposes a deeper and more uncomfortable truth: modern food production is, at its core, an energy-dependent enterprise. Fertilisers are manufactured from natural gas, tractors run on diesel, irrigation depends on electricity, and food processing and cold chains require uninterrupted power. The farm may appear distant from geopolitics, but it is tethered to it at every stage. For India, with its dual dependence on imported energy and fertiliser inputs, this linkage is especially consequential. As Rahul Mirchandani, Managing Director of Aries Agro Ltd, observes, “India has entered the Kharif season with reasonably comfortable fertiliser stocks, but prolonged disruption would raise landed costs and create availability concerns. Rising energy costs directly impact ammonia and urea production, increasing the government's subsidy burden on urea, DAP and other conventional fertilisers.” It is for this reason that the Strait of Hormuz can no longer be regarded merely as an energy chokepoint. Nearly a fifth of the world's petroleum consumption and some 80 million tonnes of LNG pass through its narrow waters each year. Less appreciated, but perhaps equally significant, is the fact that roughly one-third of global urea exports and up to 30 per cent of ammonia trade also transit this corridor. For India, Hormuz is not merely a distant maritime passage. It is an unseen but indispensable pillar of food security—one through which the geopolitics of energy increasingly shapes the economics of every harvest. That vulnerability was laid bare with startling speed following the military escalation of February 28, 2026, under Operation Epic Fury. What began as a geopolitical confrontation swiftly metastasised into a logistical paralysis. Commercial traffic through the Strait of Hormuz ground to a halt, major shipping lines suspended Suez Canal transits, and airspace across much of the Gulf was abruptly closed. Within hours, vessels were being rerouted around Africa's Cape of Good Hope, while those already inside the Persian Gulf sought refuge in ports from Jebel Ali to Doha. The scale of the disruption was extraordinary. By March 2, more than 138 container vessels carrying nearly 470,000 TEUs were stranded inside the Gulf. Industry giants including MSC, CMA CGM, Maersk, COSCO and Hapag-Lloyd found themselves caught in a maritime bottleneck of historic proportions. Predictably, costs surged. Emergency conflict and war-risk surcharges ran into thousands of dollars per container, while rising fuel prices, rerouting expenses and insurance premiums compounded the burden. By mid-March, the crisis had evolved from a regional security challenge into a systemic supply-chain shock. Voyages between Asia and Europe suddenly required an additional 10–14 days, while congestion rippled through alternative hubs from Singapore and Colombo to Mundra and Salalah. Diplomatic efforts proved futile. By April 12, vessel traffic through Hormuz had collapsed by more than 95 per cent from pre-conflict levels. One of the world's most important trade arteries had, for all practical purposes, ceased to function. The consequences for agriculture followed swiftly. Approximately one-third of global urea exports and up to 30 per cent of ammonia trade normally pass through Hormuz. Qatar’s QAFCO complex, one of the world’s largest urea producers, reportedly operated at sharply reduced levels. Urea prices surged by more than 60 per cent within weeks. Freight rates on Asia–Europe routes rose by around 20 per cent, while transpacific rates to the US West Coast increased by roughly 40 per cent compared with pre-war levels. For India, the immediate threat is not physical scarcity but escalating cost pressure. The country enters each agricultural cycle dependent on imported fertilisers, LNG, sulphur, phosphates, and potash. The government has responded with buffer inventories and substantial subsidy support. Fertiliser subsidy allocations rose from Rs 1.68 lakh crore (2024–25 budget) to Rs 1.92 lakh crore after additional approvals. For Kharif 2026, phosphatic and potassic fertiliser subsidies are estimated at Rs 41,534 crore, approximately Rs 4,317 crore higher than the previous season. India’s total fertiliser requirement for Kharif 2026 is projected at more than 390 lakh metric tonnes. Why Fertilisers Sit at the Epicentre If oil is the bloodstream of the global economy, then natural gas is its quieter, less theatrical but far more intimate counterpart in the realm of agriculture—and fertilisers are the point at which this invisible circulation is transmuted into something politically consequential: Food. It is one of the defining paradoxes of our age that the most technologically sophisticated food system in human history is also among its most geopolitically fragile. For beneath the reassuring vocabulary of yields, hybrids, and harvest cycles lies a far more elemental dependency: Energy. Nearly 80 per cent of ammonia production costs stem from natural gas, rendering nitrogen fertilisers less an agricultural input than a chemically transformed extension of global energy markets. Ammonia anchors the nitrogen chain, feeding into urea—the most widely used fertiliser in India and, arguably, one of the most consequential commodities in its agrarian economy. The scale of this dependence is neither marginal nor theoretical. India consumes approximately 35 million tonnes of urea annually, a figure that reflects both the sheer scale of its agricultural system and the structural limits of domestic nutrient production. Despite meaningful local manufacturing capacity, India remains persistently reliant on imported LNG, ammonia, phosphates, and potash. In effect, it does not merely import fertilisers; it imports the external conditions under which food becomes possible. The latest data from the World Bank Group brings this into sharp focus. The global fertiliser price index rose by more than 12 per cent in Q1 2026 (quarter-on-quarter), marking its sixth increase in seven quarters, and by April 2026 reached its highest level since October 2022. Within this surge, urea led the rally, while phosphate and potash markets exhibited relatively moderated movements. Yet even this moderation demands caution. Prices remain below the extraordinary peaks of 2021 and 2022, when fertiliser markets surged by more than 100 per cent and 55 per cent respectively, following disruptions in Russia and Belarus—two foundational suppliers of global nutrients. Those episodes had already demonstrated that fertiliser markets are, in essence, energy markets in agricultural disguise. However the present crisis is not occurring in a vacuum.  During 2022, European ammonia production collapsed as natural gas prices surged in the aftermath of the Russia–Ukraine war. Ammonia plants across the continent either sharply curtailed operations or shut down entirely as production economics disintegrated. The effects propagated outward with remarkable speed: a global fertiliser price shock that reached farmers in Brazil’s soybean belt and Bangladesh’s rice fields with equal force. India, while partially insulated through aggressive subsidy expansion, nonetheless absorbed a significant fiscal shock. The lesson was unambiguous: when natural gas prices rise, ammonia production contracts; when ammonia contracts, fertiliser supply tightens; and when fertiliser supply tightens, global food systems enter synchronized distress. Against this historical backdrop, the current Strait of Hormuz crisis acquires its full significance. Beneath India’s narrative of agricultural self-reliance lies a less acknowledged dependency. The nation continues to import approximately 10 million tonnes of urea each year; ICRIER estimates that 5.6 million tonnes were imported in 2024–25 alone, accounting for nearly 15 per cent of domestic demand. At the same time, India sourced close to 27 million tonnes of LNG, much of it from the hydrocarbon-rich states of West Asia. Collectively, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, the UAE, and Bahrain account for nearly 37 per cent of India’s fertiliser imports, in addition to supplying essential inputs such as ammonia, sulphur, and LNG for domestic production.  The consequence is unmistakable: The foundations of India’s nitrogen economy rest not merely on domestic policy and agronomy, but on the stability of a region whose geopolitical convulsions can reverberate directly through the country’s fertiliser supply chain. The market reaction has been swift and quantifiable. The World Bank notes that fertiliser prices are projected to rise by more than 30 per cent in 2026, driven by higher input costs—especially nitrogen and phosphate fertilisers—and sustained global demand. A moderation is expected only in 2027, contingent upon restored supply chains and incremental capacity additions. But the balance of risks remains decidedly skewed upward, particularly if energy prices remain elevated or if Hormuz-linked disruptions extend beyond 2026 Q3. Energy Is Agriculture's Hidden Input The numbers, taken together, do not merely describe a disruption—they describe a system under strain, where geography, energy and trade converge into a tightly wound transmission mechanism of risk. At the centre of this architecture lies the Middle East, with much of this energy flowing, in the normal course of commerce, through the Strait of Hormuz—a narrow maritime chokepoint that has migrated from the margins of geopolitics to its very centre. Since 1 March 2026, most commercial shipping lines have suspended or curtailed operations through the route due to heightened security risks. Markets have reacted with immediate force. Brent crude has surged to $82–84 per barrel from $66–67 in January–February 2026, according to Crisil. Asian spot LNG prices have climbed even more sharply, from about $10/MMBtu to $24–25/MMBtu. These are not incremental adjustments but macroeconomic shockwaves—repricing the cost of energy, and by extension, the cost of everything that depends on it. As Vinod Goyal, CEO of Agricare Corporation, notes, “Domestic factories use LNG to manufacture nitrogen-based fertilisers like urea. With 55–65 per cent of India's LNG arriving from the Middle East, reduced gas supplies have forced multiple factories to halt production. The crisis has also disrupted supplies of sulphur and phosphoric acid, both critical for DAP manufacturing.” His observation lays bare an uncomfortable truth: fertilisers are not merely agricultural inputs; they are energy transformed into nutrients. Urea is natural gas in granular form. DAP is the product of globally traded minerals moving through vulnerable supply chains. When LNG prices spike, ammonia costs rise; when ammonia tightens, fertiliser markets follow.  Yet, hydrocarbons are merely the opening act. Compounding this vulnerability is India’s dependence on imported liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), with roughly two-thirds sourced externally and the overwhelming share originating in the Middle East. LPG is primarily a household fuel, meaning its price transmission bypasses industrial buffers and enters directly into kitchens. Only about 10 per cent is used industrially, limiting corporate exposure but amplifying its social sensitivity. The disruption extends well beyond energy markets into the arteries of global trade. Freight rates across air and sea corridors have risen sharply, while insurance premiums for cargo moving through exposed maritime routes have escalated with equal urgency, adding a persistent layer of margin compression across trade-linked sectors. Nowhere is this structural exposure more pronounced than in fertilisers, where chemistry and geopolitics intersect with unusual intensity. India imports about 30 per cent of its fertiliser requirement, with nearly 40 per cent of these imports sourced from the Middle East, which also supplies around 30 per cent of imports of rock phosphate, phosphoric acid, and muriate of potash. More critically, the region sits upstream of domestic production itself, accounting for roughly 60–65 per cent of LNG imports and 75–80 per cent of ammonia imports required for fertiliser manufacturing. In such a configuration, fertilisers cease to be merely an agricultural input; they become a derivative instrument of energy geopolitics. It is at the consumption end, however, that the abstraction of global shocks acquires its most intimate—and politically consequential—form. Pushan Sharma, Director at Crisil Intelligence, captures this translation from geopolitics to kitchen economics with disarming clarity. As he notes, “The cost of home-cooked vegetarian and non-vegetarian thalis increased 5 per cent and 7 per cent year-on-year, respectively, in May, driven by higher prices of tomatoes, vegetable oil and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).” In other words, macroeconomic turbulence is no longer an external headline; it is a line item in the daily plate. The underlying food inflation mechanics, Pushan further explains, are sharply differentiated. “Tomato prices surged 57 per cent to Rs 36 per kg from Rs 23 per kg in May 2025, primarily on account of a 3–4 per cent decline in production. Meanwhile, global supply-side pressures pushed up vegetable oil and LPG prices by 8 per cent and 7 per cent on-year, respectively.” The asymmetry is telling: small supply contractions, when filtered through fragile logistics and global energy stress, translate into disproportionate price spikes. Yet even within this inflationary current, the system retains pockets of absorption. Sharma points to the stabilising role of staples: “Prices of pulses are expected to be subdued supported by comfortable domestic availability,” aided by higher projected production in marketing year 2027 and robust government stocks of around 43 lakh tonnes—the highest in three years—built through procurement under the Price Support Scheme. Even as import uncertainties around tur from Mozambique persist, duty-free imports of tur and urad, along with buffer stocks, are expected to cap upside pressures. At the edible oil frontier, the transmission is even more explicit. As Jayashree Nandakumar, Director at Crisil Ratings, observes, “Since the West Asia conflict began, the average import price of sunflower crude oil has risen to $1,420–1,440 per tonne, compared with $1,275 per tonne on average for the trailing 12 months,” with a weakening rupee and higher freight costs compounding landed inflation. This upstream shock is already visible at retail level: refined sunflower oil now trades at Rs 170–175 per litre versus around Rs 150 in January 2026. Substitution effects are beginning to reshape demand itself. With rice bran and soybean oils cheaper by Rs 10–20 per litre, consumers are gradually shifting away from sunflower oil, with demand projected to fall by nearly 10 per cent in fiscal 2027, opines Crisil.  The World Bank data reinforces the transmission with striking clarity. The global fertiliser price index rose over 12 per cent in Q1 2026, its sixth increase in seven quarters, reaching the highest level since October 2022. The natural gas price index climbed 24 per cent in March 2026 after the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Asian LNG prices surged nearly 94 per cent, while European benchmarks rose 59 per cent, even as the United States remained relatively insulated due to strong domestic supply—an instructive reminder that global shocks originate broadly but are absorbed unevenly. India sits at the sharper end of this system. It imports 88 per cent of its crude oil, about half of which typically passes through Hormuz, along with over 60 per cent of LPG and more than half of LNG imports. The resulting inflation transmission is layered: 71 per cent from primary energy, 27 per cent from downstream commodities such as fertilisers and chemicals, and just 2 per cent from freight and insurance. Physical stress adds another dimension, with gas allocations to fertiliser plants cut to 70 per cent of prior levels, signalling scarcity rather than price adjustment. Air transport costs, meanwhile, have risen 23.7 per cent due to petroleum intensity. Food inflation continued its upward trajectory, rising to 4.8 per cent in May, as persistent heatwaves disrupted supply chains and exerted renewed pressure on the prices of vegetables, dairy products, and eggs, according to a Crisil analysis. The report noted that part of the estimated 36-basis-point direct impact on CPI from the cumulative Rs 7.5 per litre increase in petrol and diesel prices during May has already been reflected in inflation data, with the remaining pass-through likely to materialise in June. At the same time, fuel inflation (covering electricity, gas, and other fuels) edged up marginally to 0.8 per cent. “While base effects continued to temper the overall rise, electricity deflation narrowed and LPG as well as PNG inflation eased on a year-on-year basis, even as sequential price increases remained evident,” said Dharmakirti Joshi, Chief Economist at Crisil Limited. He noted that inflation in alternative fuels such as kerosene, coal, and firewood accelerated further, reflecting substitution pressures as consumers increasingly turned to these options amid higher LPG costs and supply constraints. “Looking ahead, fuel inflation is likely to remain sticky—particularly for LPG—given ongoing geopolitical tensions in West Asia and the recent Rs 29 per cylinder increase in domestic LPG prices. The impact of this hike is expected to be reflected in June inflation data,” Joshi added. Corporate exposure follows a clear hierarchy. Petronet LNG Ltd sits at the most vulnerable end through regasification volumes. Fertiliser firms—National Fertilizers Ltd, Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd, and Deepak Fertilisers & Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd—face margin compression. Refiners absorb dual input shocks, city gas distributors pass through price pressure, while ONGC, Reliance Industries Ltd, and GAIL (India) Ltd gain selectively from pricing strength and supply re-routing. What emerges is a single integrated system where a maritime chokepoint, a gas molecule, a fertiliser bag, and a plate of food are bound in one continuous chain of consequence. Beyond Hormuz: Reimagining Fertiliser Security If the Strait of Hormuz crisis has delivered one lesson with unmistakable clarity, it is this: food security and energy security are no longer separate policy domains. They are, in effect, different chapters of the same story. For much of independent India's history, agriculture was narrated through the familiar grammar of monsoons, irrigation networks, seeds, soils and yields. Yet the turbulence of 2026 has revealed a more intricate reality. In an age where fertilisers are forged from natural gas, nutrient chains depend upon maritime corridors, and farm economics can be reshaped by events unfolding thousands of kilometres away, the story of food increasingly begins not in the field, but in the geopolitics of energy. India maintains one of the world’s most generous fertiliser support mechanisms, fixing the retail price of urea at a mere Rs 242 per 50-kg bag (approximately $60 per tonne) and absorbing the often-vast gulf between this politically mandated price and the realities of global import markets through a sizeable subsidy outlay borne by the exchequer. National Fertilizers Limited (NFL) recently received bids as low as $449.3 per tonne, including freight, for importing 1.7 million tonnes of urea—a dramatic retreat from the $959 per tonne bids quoted in Indian Potash Limited's (IPL) earlier 2.5 million-tonne tender during the height of the Hormuz panic. Yet the significance lies not in the decline, but in the extraordinary volatility itself. Within weeks, urea prices travelled from near-crisis levels to relative moderation, illustrating how profoundly nutrient markets have become entangled with energy prices, shipping disruptions and geopolitical risk. The fertiliser bag, once regarded as a routine agricultural input, has quietly become a barometer of global instability. For New Delhi, this volatility carries a fiscal price. The government's longstanding commitment to insulating farmers from global price shocks has required ever-larger subsidy interventions. As Vinod Goyal observes, "To keep retail prices cheap for everyday farmers, the Indian government heavily subsidizes fertilizer. To counteract the Hormuz crisis, the government hiked subsidies by 11 per cent. This response means the national fertilizer subsidy bill will overshoot its budget estimate by an extra Rs 200 to Rs 250 billion, placing a massive strain on the country's finances." Yet the deeper question extends beyond subsidy arithmetic. How long can India continue importing not merely fertilisers, but the geopolitical stability upon which fertiliser production itself depends? For Komal Shah Bhukhanwala, Executive Director of SML Limited and Sumil, the answer lies in technological transformation. "Escalating geopolitical tensions and energy volatility are exposing the risks of India’s dependence on imported fertilizer raw materials and global supply chains," she notes. "In this environment, the government should advocate the use of high Nutrient Use Efficiency (NUE) fertilizers and advanced nutrient technologies that can reduce bulk fertilizer dependence by 25–50 per cent." Such innovations, she argues, offer not merely efficiency gains but a pathway towards a more resilient and self-sustaining agricultural ecosystem. The timing could scarcely be more consequential. Geopolitical uncertainty is now intersecting with climatic anxiety. Rahul Mirchandani warns that meteorological agencies are signalling the possibility of a Super El Niño-like weather pattern, potentially exposing crops to additional heat and moisture stress. At the same time, persistent uncertainty surrounding Chinese fertiliser exports continues to tighten global supply chains. The convergence of climate risk and nutrient insecurity threatens to create a far more complex challenge than either factor would pose in isolation. It is for this reason that fertiliser security is increasingly being viewed through a strategic lens. "India must now treat fertiliser security as part of national food security through strategic reserves, diversified sourcing, domestic urea capacity expansion, overseas mineral asset partnerships and greater policy thrust on biological and natural nutrient alternatives," argues Dushyant K. Tyagi, CEO of Farmgate Technologies. But resilience cannot be built through stockpiles alone. It requires a more sophisticated redesign of the entire supply architecture. Anand Chandra, Co-founder and Executive Director of Arya.ag, advocates a broader approach encompassing diversified sourcing, feedstock security, stronger domestic production, pre-season planning and granular visibility over district-level demand and inventories. Strategic reserves may have a role, he suggests, but they must be tailored to India's agricultural realities rather than borrowed wholesale from energy-sector playbooks. There is, however, another dimension to the crisis—one that speaks not of vulnerability but of opportunity. As global supply chains undergo a fresh bout of introspection, Siddharth Gupta, Co-Founder of Atomgrid, believes India has an opening to reposition itself. "When Indian companies stop being described as 'China alternatives' and start being the first call, when customers build their global supply chain architecture around India rather than as a hedge against China—that is the real transition," he says. The transformation may take years, but moments of disruption often accelerate shifts that would otherwise unfold over decades. Taken together, these developments underscore a larger reality. The challenge before India is not merely to secure the next cargo of urea or expand the next subsidy allocation. It is to build an agricultural and economic system that is less vulnerable to external shocks and better equipped to navigate an increasingly uncertain global landscape. Recent events have offered a stark reminder of that vulnerability. The current ceasefire between the United States and Iran and the subsequent reopening of the Strait of Hormuz triggered an immediate response across global markets. The Indian rupee climbed to a five-week high of Rs 94.45 against the US dollar in intraday trade, recovering 2.6 per cent from its record low of Rs 96.96 on May 20, before closing at Rs 94.71. The rally was accompanied by a sharp decline in crude oil prices, with Brent falling below $85 per barrel and hovering around $83 as fears of supply disruptions eased. The speed of the market reaction highlighted the extent to which geopolitical developments continue to shape economic outcomes far beyond their point of origin. For India, where agriculture remains closely linked to energy markets through input costs, logistics and inflation dynamics, such volatility carries implications that extend well beyond currency and commodity trading floors. As FAO Chief Economist Máximo Torero has observed, "While food markets remain more stable than during previous crises, the current shock underscores the vulnerability of interconnected energy and agrifood systems." The recent Hormuz episode reinforces that assessment. A diplomatic standoff in one of the world's most strategically important waterways was enough to unsettle energy markets, move currencies and alter economic sentiment across importing nations. --- ---- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4220/rethinking-waste-for-net-zero-future.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4220/rethinking-waste-for-net-zero-future.html Mon, 06 Jul 2026 15:13:39 +0530 In this insightful Agrospectrum interview, Dr. Daya Pandey, Assistant Professor in Energy Systems at the University of Leeds, presents a compelling roadmap for transforming India's waste management ecosystem into a cornerstone of the circular bioeconomy. Drawing on his expertise in energy systems, climate policy and resource recovery, he explains why waste must be viewed not merely as a sanitation challenge but as a strategic economic, environmental and public health priority. The conversation explores practical pathways for tackling agricultural residue burning, scaling waste-to-energy solutions and strengthening India-UK research collaborations to accelerate sustainable innovation. Dr. Pandey also underscores the importance of locally adapted solutions, evidence-based policymaking and integrated infrastructure in achieving India's net-zero ambitions. His perspectives offer valuable insights for policymakers, industry stakeholders and researchers seeking to build a more resource-efficient and climate-resilient future. India’s urban waste burden is projected to rise dramatically by 2050. In your view, what are the biggest structural weaknesses in India’s current waste management ecosystem that prevent cities from transitioning toward circular and low-emission models?  A major barrier to building a more sustainable waste management system in India is the continued dependence on a linear consumption model, where resources are extracted, used, and ultimately discarded rather than recovered and circulated back into the economy. Although important policy measures have been introduced to promote better waste management practices to support the transition from a linear to a circular economy approach, nevertheless, their implementation varies considerably across regions. Many urban centres still struggle with challenges such as inadequate source segregation, inefficient collection systems, limited processing capacity, and a lack of reliable data to support informed planning and decision-making. Addressing these gaps will be critical to enabling the transition towards more circular and low-emission urban systems.  Another structural weakness is the fragmentation of responsibilities across multiple agencies, which often limits coordinated action. Informal waste workers play a crucial role in material recovery, yet they remain insufficiently integrated into formal waste management systems. To transition towards circular and low-emission models, India will need stronger institutional coordination, investment in decentralised infrastructure, improved material recovery systems, and greater emphasis on viewing waste as a resource rather than a liability. Your research highlights the intersection of waste management, public health, and climate policy. How critical is it for India to stop treating municipal waste purely as a sanitation issue and instead frame it as a national economic and environmental priority? This shift in perspective is essential. Municipal waste is not merely a sanitation concern; it is simultaneously a public health issue, a climate challenge, and an economic opportunity. Poorly managed waste contributes to air pollution, water contamination, greenhouse gas emissions, and adverse health outcomes, particularly among vulnerable populations. At the same time, waste streams contain valuable resources that can be recovered through recycling, energy generation, composting, and other circular economy approaches. By framing waste management as an economic and environmental priority, policymakers can unlock investments, stimulate innovation, create jobs, and contribute to broader sustainability goals. Such an approach also aligns closely with India's commitments to climate action and sustainable urban development and is framed in the recently adopted Solid Waste Management Rules (2026), focusing on minimising landfill and promoting source segregation. Agricultural residue burning remains one of India’s most persistent environmental challenges. What policy or technological interventions do you believe can realistically persuade farmers to shift away from stubble burning at scale? Addressing stubble burning requires recognising the economic realities faced by farmers. Many farmers resort to residue burning because it is the fastest and least expensive option available within the narrow window between harvesting and preparing the farmland for the next crop. Therefore, sustainable alternatives must be both practical and economically attractive. A combination of policy incentives and market-based mechanisms is likely to be most effective. This includes supporting access to residue management machinery, developing robust biomass supply chains, creating demand for agricultural residues in bioenergy and bio-based industries, and providing financial incentives for sustainable residue management practices. Technology certainly has a role to play, but long-term success will depend on ensuring that alternative solutions are affordable, accessible, and beneficial to farmers' livelihoods. The studies emphasize that there is ‘no silver bullet’ for India’s waste crisis. Given the country’s vast socio-economic diversity, how important are locally adapted solutions compared to large national policy frameworks? Both are necessary, but they serve different purposes. National policy frameworks provide strategic direction, regulatory consistency, and investment signals. However, waste generation patterns, infrastructure capacity, governance structures, and socio-economic conditions vary significantly across India. As a result, locally adapted solutions are often essential for achieving meaningful outcomes. What works effectively in a metropolitan city may not be suitable for a smaller municipality or rural district. Successful waste management strategies should therefore combine national-level guidance with flexibility for local innovation. This balance allows communities to develop solutions that reflect their specific environmental, economic, and social contexts while still contributing to broader national sustainability goals. India has committed to achieving net-zero emissions by 2070. From your perspective, can waste-to-energy systems, circular bioeconomy models, and agricultural residue utilisation emerge as commercially viable pillars of India’s decarbonisation strategy? These approaches have significant potential, but their success will depend on appropriate implementation and integration within wider sustainability frameworks. Waste-to-energy systems can help reduce landfill dependence and recover energy from non-recyclable waste streams, although they must be supported by effective segregation and emissions controls. Similarly, circular bioeconomy models offer opportunities to convert agricultural residues, organic waste, and other biomass resources into alternative fuels including green hydrogen, chemicals, materials, and energy. India generates approximately 178 million tonnes of surplus agricultural residue per year, which presents a significant opportunity to be used as a raw material in the generation of renewable hydrogen and could play an important role in achieving the targets of India’s National Green Hydrogen Mission (NGHM). As technologies mature and supply chains develop, these solutions can contribute meaningfully to emissions reduction while supporting rural economic development. Rather than viewing them as standalone solutions, it is more useful to consider them as complementary components of a broader decarbonisation strategy that includes renewable energy, resource efficiency, sustainable consumption, and circular economy principles. International research partnerships are increasingly shaping climate and sustainability policy discussions. What distinct strengths do collaborations between UK institutions and Indian research bodies bring to solving complex environmental challenges? Climate and sustainability challenges are inherently global, yet their impacts are often highly localised. Collaborations between UK and Indian institutions bring together complementary strengths that can accelerate innovation and evidence-based policymaking. The UK contributes extensive expertise in climate modelling, systems analysis, policy development, and advanced research methodologies. India offers valuable experience in implementing solutions at scale within highly diverse and rapidly evolving socio-economic contexts. When these strengths are combined, researchers can develop more robust, practical, and scalable approaches to environmental challenges. Such partnerships also facilitate knowledge exchange, capacity building, access to diverse datasets, and the co-development of solutions that are both scientifically rigorous and locally relevant. Rapid urbanisation, rising incomes, and changing consumption patterns are fundamentally altering India’s waste composition. How urgently must policymakers rethink urban infrastructure planning to avoid a long-term environmental and public health crisis? The need is immediate. Urbanisation and economic growth are increasing both the volume and complexity of waste generated across Indian cities. Without proactive planning, existing infrastructure could become increasingly overwhelmed, leading to environmental degradation, public health risks, and escalating economic costs. Future urban infrastructure planning must move beyond conventional waste collection and disposal models. Cities should invest in integrated systems that prioritise waste prevention, material recovery, recycling, resource efficiency, and circular economy principles. Digital technologies, decentralised treatment systems, and improved data management can also play an important role in enhancing efficiency and resilience. The decisions made today will significantly influence the environmental sustainability and quality of life in India's cities for decades to come. Beyond research publications and academic collaboration, what tangible policy outcomes or industry transformations do you hope these India-UK partnerships can influence over the next ? The ultimate objective of research collaboration should be real-world impact. Over the next decade, I hope to see stronger evidence-based policymaking, greater adoption of circular economy practices, and accelerated deployment of sustainable technologies across sectors such as waste management, energy, and agriculture. These partnerships can help inform regulatory frameworks, support pilot projects that demonstrate scalable solutions, and strengthen links between academia, industry, and government. They can also contribute to workforce development by equipping future researchers, engineers, and policymakers with the skills needed to address emerging sustainability challenges. Most importantly, I hope these collaborations contribute to practical solutions that improve environmental quality, support economic development, and enhance public well-being, both in India and internationally. -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4191/intelligent-distillery-how-ai-is-rewiring-economics-of-bioenergy.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4191/intelligent-distillery-how-ai-is-rewiring-economics-of-bioenergy.html Tue, 30 Jun 2026 13:48:42 +0530 In an exclusive interview with AgroSpectrum, Anand Mahurkar, Founder & CEO of Findability Sciences, argues that artificial intelligence is emerging as the hidden engine of modern bioenergy systems, transforming everything from feedstock management and fermentation efficiency to energy optimisation and ESG compliance. He contends that the greatest losses in bioenergy plants arise from small, recurring inefficiencies that conventional systems fail to detect, but which AI can identify and address in real time. As India accelerates beyond its E20 ethanol blending target and looks toward higher ambitions, AI-powered process intelligence is becoming a critical competitive advantage for sugar mills and distilleries. Looking ahead, Mahurkar envisions AI-enabled bioenergy facilities evolving into intelligent, self-learning energy nodes that enhance grid resilience while delivering stronger economic and environmental outcomes. How is AI changing the economics and performance architecture of modern bioenergy systems? The economics of a bioenergy plant are not lost in one big failure. They bleed out through small, recurring inefficiencies, inconsistent fermentation, excess steam use, suboptimal feedstock allocation, equipment that degrades quietly. Conventional systems show you what is happening. AI tells you why, and what to do before the loss compounds. What makes this urgent is the scale of what is at stake. India crossed the E20 blending milestone in November 2025 ahead of target, and the conversation has already moved to E22. That ambition requires every distillery and sugar mill to perform at its best. At Findability Sciences, we believe the next competitive edge is not just in how much ethanol a plant produces, but in how intelligently it produces it. The margins in bioenergy are not lost in one big failure — they bleed out quietly, every shift. AI makes that bleeding visible before it becomes a crisis. What inefficiencies inside bioenergy plants can AI identify and optimise better than conventional systems? The biggest losses are the invisible ones, not alarms going off, but margins leaking out every hour. Take an integrated sugar-distillery operation. The decision on how to split output between sugar, ethanol, and power export is often made quarterly, when the data is telling you something new every shift. That is a data problem, not a capital problem. What AI does is unify the information that already exists, SCADA, lab results, maintenance logs, feedstock quality — and make it actionable in real time. On a 10,000 TCD mill, even half a percentage point of additional sugar recovery translates to tens of crores over a season. The data has always been there. What was missing was the intelligence layer connecting it. The data already exists in the plant. It just isn’t unified, and it isn’t used to decide. That’s the gap AI closes. Is bioenergy underestimated as a sector compared to solar, wind, and green hydrogen? Honestly, yes. Bioenergy doesn’t photograph as dramatically as a wind turbine or a solar array, so it tends to get less attention in the clean energy conversation. But it is already the largest source of renewable energy globally, accounting for more than 50% of all renewable energy use in 2023. In India, it is expected to grow up to 45 per cent between 2023 and 2030. What makes bioenergy different, and more relevant to India, is that it sits at the intersection of energy, agriculture, rural livelihoods, and industrial productivity. When we work with sugar mills or distilleries, we are not just optimising energy output. We are improving the economic health of entire farming communities connected to that plant. Bioenergy doesn’t photograph as well as a solar farm. But it’s the only renewable that also feeds a farmer, runs a mill, and powers a village — all from the same crop. How difficult is it to integrate intelligent systems into legacy industrial infrastructure? It is challenging, but the challenge is rarely technical. Most plants have PLCs, SCADA systems, ERP platforms, lab systems, and manual records all running in parallel with very little talking to each other. The answer is not to rip and replace. The answer is to build an intelligence layer that sits above all of it and makes sense of the data collectively. The harder challenge is trust. An operator who has run a fermentation process for 15 years is not going to act on a recommendation from a machine unless he understands why that recommendation was made. At Findability Sciences, we design specifically for that. AI should augment what the operator already knows ,not override it. When that relationship works, adoption happens naturally. An operator with 15 years on the fermentation floor knows things no algorithm does — yet. Our job is to make AI earn that operator’s trust, not bypass it. Could process intelligence become the hidden competitive advantage in industrial decarbonisation? I think it already is - for the companies paying attention. Decarbonisation is not only about switching energy sources. It is also about using less energy, wasting fewer inputs, and recovering more from what you already have. The IEA calls energy efficiency the “first fuel” of the clean energy transition, and for industrial sectors, process intelligence is how you actually implement that idea. McKinsey’s research found that energy companies with advanced AI capabilities achieve total shareholder returns up to 2x their peers. In agro-industrial terms, that gap will show up not just in profitability but in ESG credibility, which is increasingly what large offtakers and lenders are asking for. Decarbonisation is not just about switching fuels. It’s about wasting less of what you already have. Process intelligence is where that actually happens. How critical is machine learning in managing variable bioenergy feedstocks? It is fundamental. Sugarcane is not a consistent raw material. Moisture content, sucrose levels, trash load, and how long the cane sat before crushing, all of it affects fermentation and yield. A plant running grain-based ethanol faces its own version of this with maize or broken rice quality variations across procurement cycles. Machine learning helps you get ahead of that variability instead of reacting to it. Our Super 50 AI Farmers programme in Jalna, Maharashtra is built on exactly this, giving real-time advisory to farmers on crop conditions, which feeds back into better feedstock quality for the mill. Better farm intelligence leads to better plant performance. That circular benefit is what makes AI genuinely transformative in this sector, not just useful. Sugarcane is never the same crop twice. The mill that can read that variability in real time — and adjust before the fermentation tank tells you something went wrong — is the mill that wins the season. Are companies beginning to see AI-enabled energy optimisation as a compliance necessity? That shift is happening faster than most people realise. A year ago, energy efficiency was primarily an operations conversation. Today, it is a board-level one. ESG scrutiny from investors, carbon accounting requirements from export partners, and sustainability disclosures tied to green financing, all of these require plant-level data that most companies currently don’t have in an auditable form. AI doesn’t just optimise the process, it creates a continuous, verifiable data record of how efficiently and responsibly a plant is operating. That is increasingly non-negotiable for companies wanting access to institutional capital or serving buyers with sustainability mandates. Optimisation used to be a productivity lever. It is now a licence to operate. AI-enabled optimisation used to be a productivity conversation. Today it’s a licence-to-operate conversation. That shift happened faster than the industry expected. Where does AI-powered bioenergy fit into future smart and resilient energy grids? Unlike solar or wind, bioenergy is dispatchable, you can manage it. A sugar mill with a co-generation unit, a distillery, and biomass residue is essentially a local energy node. With AI, that node can become intelligent: forecasting feedstock availability, optimising how it balances sugar versus ethanol versus power export on any given day, and responding to grid demand signals in real time. India has 499 distilleries with a combined annual capacity of 1,822 crore litres as of mid-2025. If even a fraction of those plants become AI-optimised energy nodes, the contribution to grid stability in agricultural belts becomes genuinely significant , not just as energy producers, but as intelligent, responsive infrastructure. A sugar mill with co-gen and a distillery is already a local energy hub. Add AI, and it becomes an intelligent grid node that responds, adapts, and optimises in real time. That’s the future we’re building towards. Does the long-term value of AI lie in automation alone, or in predictive, self-learning infrastructure? Automation is table stakes. Any plant can automate a routine task. The real value is in a system that learns , that gets sharper as it processes more seasons, more feedstock variations, more production cycles. That is the infrastructure we are building at Findability Sciences: not a fixed automation layer, but a self-improving intelligence that becomes more valuable the longer it runs. For sectors like sugar, ethanol, and dairy, which operate at the intersection of biological variability and industrial precision, that capability is not a future concept. It is the difference between a plant that performs consistently and one that leaves margin on the table every single season. Automation solves for today. Self-learning AI solves for every season that follows. That’s the difference between a tool and an asset. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/reports-white-papers/91/4190/defining-trends-in-asian-agriculture-during-h1-2026.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/reports-white-papers/91/4190/defining-trends-in-asian-agriculture-during-h1-2026.html Tue, 30 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0530 The first six months of 2026 will be remembered in Asian agriculture as a season of two clocks running at very different speeds. One clock — the one ticking inside research institutes, regulatory agencies and the slide decks of agri-food investors — moved unusually fast. Genome-edited rice advanced toward farmers' fields in India. China finalised its second registration list of genetically modified corn and soybean varieties. Singapore quietly logged its fourth cultivated-meat approval and published, for the first time, a consolidated public list of every novel food it has cleared. India's Union Budget rewrote the language of farm policy around artificial intelligence and digital public infrastructure. By almost any measure of institutional momentum, the science and the statecraft of agriculture in Asia accelerated. The other clock belongs to the weather, the soil and the balance sheet — and it told a harder story. The India Meteorological Department opened the year with its most pessimistic monsoon forecast in more than two decades. Venture capital into the region's agritech sector remained roughly two-thirds below its peak. And the gap between a technology cleared in a lab and a technology working on a smallholding the size of a tennis court stayed stubbornly, frustratingly wide. The defining tension of H1 2026 was not whether Asian agriculture is innovating. It plainly is. The question is whether that innovation is reaching the ground fast enough to matter when the rains fall short. The science finally moves For more than a decade, the story of crop biotechnology in much of Asia was a story of stalled promise. India had approved exactly one genetically modified crop for commercial cultivation — Bt cotton, back in 2006 — and the political and regulatory machinery around transgenics had effectively seized up. What changed, and what came into sharper focus through H1 2026, is that the region has found a way around that impasse: genome editing. The distinction matters enormously. Where conventional GM crops carry foreign DNA and trigger the full weight of biosafety regulation, genome-edited varieties produced through SDN-1 and SDN-2 techniques edit a plant's own genes and leave no foreign genetic material behind. A 2022 office memorandum from India's environment ministry exempted such transgene-free edited plants from the strictest tier of approval, requiring only that an institutional biosafety committee certify the absence of exogenous DNA. That single regulatory differentiation has done what years of debate over GM could not: it has put new traits on a credible path to farmers. The proof points are now real rather than theoretical. India's two genome-edited rice lines — an improved Samba Mahsuri and an edited version of MTU-1010 — cleared multi-location trials, with the enhanced Samba Mahsuri showing a roughly 19 percent average yield uplift and the MTU-1010 variant demonstrating tolerance to saline and alkaline soils. A third candidate, a canola-quality mustard edited for disease and pest resistance, has been moving through its second year of trials across sixteen locations, with a possible release flagged for later in 2026. Behind these headline varieties sits a deeper strategic play: Indian scientists have been advancing indigenous gene-editing tools — TnpB-based miniature editors and platforms beyond the patent-heavy Cas9 — explicitly to reduce dependence on foreign intellectual property. A pipeline that includes drought-tolerant rice and maize, beta-carotene-rich banana, and high-oleic groundnut is no longer a wish list; it is a regulatory queue. China spent the half-year pressing in the same direction, but from a position of far greater scale and urgency. As the world's largest importer of corn and soybeans, Beijing has framed seed self-reliance as a matter of national security, and its biotechnology programme reflects that framing. By early 2026 the country had finalised its second registration list of GM corn and soybean varieties — building on the first batch of production licences issued at the end of 2023 — and had approved its first gene-edited wheat and corn for domestic cultivation. The government's own projections put potential yield gains from these varieties at around 12 percent, and some industry analysts believe the eventual planted area could reach tens of millions of hectares. China still moves cautiously, public ambivalence about GM food remains real, and foreign investment in its agricultural biotech sector is largely walled off. But the trajectory through H1 2026 was unmistakable: a deliberate, state-driven push to close the yield gap with the Americas using domestically owned genetics. Two of Asia's largest agricultural economies, in other words, spent the first half of 2026 demonstrating that the long biotech stalemate is breaking — not through the transgenic crops that dominated the last era's debates, but through precision editing that sidesteps both the regulatory burden and much of the political resistance. Policy learns to speak in code If genome editing was the science story of H1 2026, the digitalisation of farm policy was its administrative counterpart — and nowhere was the shift more explicit than in India's Union Budget for 2026-27, presented at the start of February. The numbers themselves told a story of consolidation rather than transformation. Agriculture and allied activities drew an allocation in the region of ₹1.62 lakh crore, up around 7 percent on the previous year's revised estimates, with a separate fertiliser subsidy of roughly ₹1.71 lakh crore continuing to absorb global price shocks on farmers' behalf. Direct income support under PM-KISAN held flat at ₹63,500 crore for a third consecutive year — a sign that the transfer is now treated as a baseline entitlement rather than a lever to be pulled. The more revealing signals lay in where new money and new language went. The budget leaned hard into what one agtech commentator described as an "AI-first" vision of agriculture. The headline instrument was Bharat-VISTAAR, a multilingual, AI-enabled advisory platform funded at ₹150 crore and designed to knit together the AgriStack digital identity framework and the Indian Council of Agricultural Research's package of practices into something a farmer can actually query in their own language. Alongside it sat the continuing build-out of the Digital Agriculture Mission, with a stated ambition to generate unique digital IDs for 110 million farmers. The thematic centre of gravity shifted, too — away from the wheat-and-rice staples and toward high-value agriculture, with dedicated promotion schemes for coconut, cashew, cocoa and sandalwood, and a record allocation for fisheries built around the integrated development of 500 reservoirs. It would be easy to read all of this as unambiguous progress, and harder but more honest to note the tensions inside it. The same budget trimmed the flagship crop-insurance scheme, the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana, to its lowest allocation in years — a striking choice in a year when, by the government's own Economic Survey, weather shocks were inflicting heavier and more frequent yield losses. Allocations for agricultural research and education edged down even as the rhetoric of innovation rose. The architecture being built is genuinely impressive: a data layer, an AI advisory layer, a diversification push toward crops with better margins. Whether that architecture reaches the rainfed smallholder before the next failed monsoon does — that remains the open question of the entire enterprise. What the budget made unambiguous is the direction of travel. Across Asia, the policy conversation has moved decisively from inputs and subsidies toward data, diversification and digital infrastructure. The instruments now carry names like AgriStack and Bharat-VISTAAR rather than minimum support prices. The bet is that intelligence — delivered cheaply, at scale, in the right language — can do what decades of input subsidy could not: make 140 million Indian farmers more resilient to climate and market volatility. It is a serious bet. H1 2026 placed it; the field will settle it. The protein frontier grows up Few corners of Asian agri-food have generated more heat over the past five years than alternative protein, and few entered 2026 in greater need of a reality check. The first half of the year delivered both fresh regulatory milestones and a sober recalibration of expectations — and Singapore, as ever, sat at the centre of the story. The city-state remains the only place in Asia to have built a working, repeatable regulatory pathway for novel foods, and in H1 2026 it made that pathway newly transparent. In March, the Singapore Food Agency published its first consolidated public list of approved novel foods — fourteen products and ingredients spanning cultivated meat, algal protein and a range of fermentation-derived foods. For an industry that had long operated against a backdrop of case-by-case decisions, a centralised, citable register was more than housekeeping; it was a signal of regulatory maturity that the rest of the region will study closely. The approvals kept coming, too. In April, the Paris-based startup Parima — formed from the merger of Gourmey and Vital Meat — won clearance for cultivated duck, six months after its cultivated chicken was approved, making it the first company anywhere to hold regulatory green lights for two animal species and bringing Singapore's tally of approved cultivated-meat products to four. Parima's stated playbook is instructive: begin in high-end gastronomy, where a cultivated duck endorsed by Michelin-starred chefs can command a premium, then move toward targeted retail. Its production model — cells grown in suspension in standard industrial bioreactors, deployable in partner infrastructure across Asia-Pacific without rebuilding a facility from scratch — points to where the economics of this sector may eventually have to land. And yet the most important alternative-protein development of the half-year was arguably a step back rather than a step forward. Singapore confirmed that it is retiring its long-standing "30 by 30" local-production target in favour of a broader strategy — the Singapore Food Story 2 — built on four pillars: local production of protein and fibre, import diversification, stockpiling and global partnerships. Cultivated meat and other alternative proteins, the government made clear, are no longer counted as part of the near-term food-security plan. The reasons were candid: higher-than-expected production costs and weaker-than-expected consumer acceptance globally. The sector has not been abandoned — R&D funding continues, and officials left the door open to a larger future role "if and when" the economics turn — but the framing changed from imminent solution to long-term option. That recalibration is healthy, and it captures something true about the whole alternative-protein moment in Asia. The regulatory science is maturing; the regulatory transparency is improving; the species count is climbing. What has not yet arrived is the cost curve and the consumer pull that would turn a string of approvals into a meaningful share of the protein on Asian plates. H1 2026 was the half-year in which the industry stopped over-promising and started, more usefully, to grow up. The capital reckoning Underwriting all of this — the gene-editing pipelines, the digital platforms, the bioreactors — is capital, and the capital story of H1 2026 was one of hard-won discipline after an exuberant boom. The defining document arrived in April, when Omnivore, Beanstalk AgTech and Briter released a data-driven analysis of the agritech landscape across thirteen Southeast Asian markets, backed by the IFC, FMO Ventures and the Rabo Foundation. Its central claim was bullish: digitalisation and agritech adoption could unlock more than US$90 billion in annual GDP gains across Southeast Asia by 2033, in a region where agriculture contributes roughly 15 percent of GDP and employs up to 40 percent of the workforce. But the report's value lay in its candour about how that prize had been pursued so far. Agritech investment across the region peaked at over US$750 million in 2022 before falling nearly 70 percent by 2025 — a sharp correction as investors confronted the structural realities of fragmented value chains and the genuine difficulty of scaling ventures across markets that share a map but little else. The report's most useful conclusions were its uncomfortable ones. There is, it argued, no unified Southeast Asian market to conquer; roughly two-thirds of documented cross-border expansion attempts had failed, and premature regional expansion was the cause of more than 60 percent of venture collapses between 2022 and 2025. The most defensible opportunities, it concluded, are single-market plays built around the right value chain, the right business model and a local execution team — not the pan-regional land grabs that defined the boom years. As Omnivore's Mark Kahn put it, patient, disciplined capital that understands local market dynamics is what actually moves these ecosystems forward. Tellingly, the authors held up India as the instructive model — a market whose venture ecosystem matured through a hard decade of governance reform, exits and the unglamorous work of building market infrastructure. Development finance institutions and impact investors have committed a combined US$650 million to agrifood funds across the region and remain central to the capital stack, but the report was clear that the next phase of scaling will require a blend of equity, credit and concessional capital rather than venture money alone. For an industry that spent the early 2020s chasing valuations, this is a more sober and more durable foundation. The money flowing into Asian agritech in 2026 is more patient, more local and more honest about the structural friction of fragmented smallholder agriculture. That is not a retreat. It is the sector learning, expensively, how the region actually works. The field doesn't care about any of this And then there is the weather, which has the disconcerting habit of ignoring every register of approved novel foods and every line of an AI advisory platform. The single most consequential development of H1 2026 for hundreds of millions of Asian farmers was not a clearance or a funding round. It was the India Meteorological Department's first-stage forecast, issued in April, that the 2026 southwest monsoon would deliver around 92 percent of the long-period average — a below-normal season, and by some accounts the lowest first-stage forecast in at least twenty-five years. The climate signals behind the number were ominous: weak La Niña conditions transitioning toward neutral, with a meaningful probability of El Niño developing during the monsoon season itself. The historical record is unforgiving on this point — across the El Niño years India logged between 1951 and 2022, every drought year was an El Niño year. By mid-year the strain was already visible. The season opened well below normal, agriculture officials flagged El Niño risk across a dozen states and called for district-level contingency plans, and crop-weather monitors issued severe dry alerts across the soybean and groundnut belts, threatening to delay sowing and shorten the growing window. Roughly 60 percent of India's farmers depend on monsoon rainfall, and close to half the country's farmland lacks assured irrigation; the kharif crops sown from June — rice, soybean, cotton, pulses, groundnut — rely almost entirely on those rains. Reservoir buffers, fuller than in recent years, offer some cushion, and a late-developing positive Indian Ocean Dipole could yet offset part of the El Niño signal as it did in 2023. But variability, not the aggregate number, will decide the season. Ratings agencies were already pencilling in downside risks to agricultural growth and upside risks to food inflation. This is the context against which every laboratory triumph of the half-year has to be read. A genome-edited drought-tolerant rice is precisely the kind of innovation that matters in a 92-percent monsoon year — but the edited Samba Mahsuri reaching commercial scale and the drought-tolerant lines reaching farmers are still future events, not present realities. An AI advisory platform is exactly what a smallholder facing an erratic kharif season could use — but Bharat-VISTAAR's value depends entirely on whether it reaches remote, rainfed districts in time to change a planting decision. The crop-insurance scheme that would cushion a failed season was trimmed in the same budget that funded the AI platform. There is a related, quieter argument that gained traction in the region's agtech commentary at the start of 2026: that the sector has over-indexed on inventing new tools and under-invested in deploying the ones it already has. Asia-Pacific accounts for half of the 1.3 billion tonnes of food wasted globally each year; in South Asia, where a staggering share of the population is born underweight or stunted, around 40 percent of all food perishes before it is eaten. The toolbox to address this — from biologicals to gene-editing to AI robotics — is already substantial. The constraint is rarely the technology. It is the absence of a safety net that lets a smallholder absorb the risk of trying something new, and the persistent difficulty of tracing a benefit back to the tool that produced it. The most important agricultural work of 2026, on this reading, is less about the next breakthrough than about closing the distance between the breakthrough and the farm. Where the two clocks meet If H1 2026 had a single physical setting where its two clocks were visibly synchronised, it was the exhibition floor. In May, Agritechnica Asia returned to Bangkok under the theme "Farm. Farmer. Future." — co-located with HortEx Thailand, drawing around 350 exhibitors and an expected 18,000-plus visitors from across the region, and headlined by a new conference on smart agriculture and unmanned agricultural systems. Taiwan's Asia Agri-Tech Expo ran in the same month with a comparable emphasis on AI smart farming, automation and aquaculture. The Southeast Asian agricultural mechanisation market that these events serve is projected to keep growing at around 4 percent annually toward US$2.5 billion by 2028, driven by rice, sugarcane, cassava and maize across the Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia. What these gatherings made tangible is the through-line of the entire half-year: physical AI is moving from the conference panel to the field. Robotics, sensors, unmanned systems and data platforms are no longer the speculative content of a startup zone; they are increasingly the practical content of a mechanisation strategy adapted to Asian production systems and smallholder economics. The relevant question across the region has shifted from whether the technology works to whether it can be put, affordably and durably, into the hands of the farmer who needs it. That is the right question, and it frames what the second half of 2026 will test. Watch for India's genome-edited mustard, which could secure release in the coming months and would mark the first edited oilseed to reach the field. Watch how the kharif season actually resolves once July and August — the months that carry the bulk of the rainfall and cover the critical growth stages — deliver their verdict on the El Niño signal. Watch whether the capital discipline the Omnivore report prescribed translates into the patient, single-market, locally led ventures it championed. And watch, at October's Asia-Pacific Agri-Food Innovation Summit in Singapore, whether the alternative-protein sector can show a cost curve to match its lengthening list of approvals. The first half of 2026 proved that Asian agriculture can innovate at speed across science, policy and capital. The genome editors are working, the AI platforms are funded, the regulatory pathways are maturing, and the money is wiser than it was. What the half-year could not yet prove is the only thing that ultimately counts: that this acceleration reaches the field before the field runs dry. The lab clock is fast. The field clock is the one keeping real time. Closing the distance between them is the work that remains. ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4177/india-and-philippines-can-lead-next-phase-of-agricultural-carbon-markets-ecoguard-global-ceo.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4177/india-and-philippines-can-lead-next-phase-of-agricultural-carbon-markets-ecoguard-global-ceo.html Fri, 26 Jun 2026 13:23:25 +0530 In an exclusive interview with AgroSpectrum, Yashodhan Ramteke argues that the future of agricultural carbon markets will hinge not on uniform farming systems but on robust digital measurement, reporting and verification (MRV), transparent data, and strong farmer aggregation models that can work across diverse geographies such as India and the Philippines. He explains how India’s extensive network of Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs) and the Philippines’ cooperative-led coconut sector offer different but equally scalable pathways for integrating millions of smallholders into global climate finance without compromising local governance structures. Ramteke also cautions that carbon finance must remain a supplementary income stream rather than a replacement for agricultural subsidies or food production, stressing that fair revenue sharing, farmer ownership of data, and transparent benefit distribution will determine the long-term credibility of carbon markets. Drawing parallels between India's diversified agricultural landscape and the Philippines' plantation-based coconut economy, he outlines why both countries can play complementary roles in the evolving global carbon economy despite fundamentally different farming systems. The conversation further examines whether the emerging India–Philippines carbon partnership represents a genuine democratization of climate finance or risks becoming a centralized system of agricultural data and carbon value extraction, underscoring the governance choices that will shape its future. India and the Philippines both have fragmented smallholder agriculture—so what makes you confident this aggregation model will work equally across such different institutional and land-tenure systems? Despite differences in their agricultural structures, both India and the Philippines have something in common: the millions of smallholder farmers cultivating relatively small areas of land. The essential takeaway lesson from the international carbon markets is that you do not need similar land-tenure systems in order to participate effectively-you need well functioning aggregation, transparent data, and reliable MRV systems. The work EcoGuard is doing with the Confederation of Coconut Farmers Organizations of the Philippines (Confed) highlights the ability of farmer cooperatives and producer organizations to function effectively as aggregators. In India similar networks and systems are already in place through Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs), cooperatives and commodity associations. EcoGuard’s work concentrates on building a digital overlay, which ensures a standardized MRV framework independent of the underlying institutional structures. Through dMRV, satellite monitoring, GIS and direct capture of farmer-level data, a common, standardized structure can be established while remaining sensitive to country-level governance and tenure structures. Aggregation works therefore not due to the similarities between India and the Philippines, but due to the strong community based agricultural structures that already exist in both countries and can be linked digitally to carbon markets. In countries like India, procurement and subsidy systems already shape farmer behavior—how do carbon credits avoid becoming just another distorted incentive layer? Agricultural policy or subsidy programs should not be confused with carbon credits, since they perform fundamentally different functions. Subsidies typically aim to boost production, improve income stability, and contribute to food security. Carbon finance focuses on rewarding measurable environmental benefits like carbon sequestration, improvement in soil health, reducing emissions, or ecosystem rehabilitation. The best performing carbon programs focus on those actions that already support long-term farmer viability. For instance, practices that often include soil carbon and other benefits like regenerative agriculture, agroforestry, improved nutrient management and climate smart agriculture fit the bill. EcoGuard believes that the best application of carbon finance for farmers is as a supplemental revenue stream rather than the main incentive. Correctly structured methodologies can assure that carbon credits are only issued when climate benefits have been achieved, rather than generating artificial market impacts. In the Philippines, coconut farming is highly dispersed—what structural advantage does it have over India in building verifiable carbon credit systems? Philippines has an advantage because the agricultural landscape of coconut plantations is a more uniform system. This simplifies the establishment of baselines, measurement of carbon stocks and monitoring compared to agricultural systems with much greater diversity. Through working with Confed we have seen strong farmer organization structures and largely homogenous crop portfolio across extensive areas which is advantageous for the application and verification of methodology. The agriculture system in India, is much more diverse with various cropping patterns, agro-climatic zones, and land use. While complex, the variety offers scale and opportunity for several carbon methodologies. Are we seeing a convergence where both India and the Philippines are being integrated into a global carbon supply chain designed primarily for compliance buyers in developed markets? Certainly, the carbon market is becoming more linked, but it is inaccurate to describe this merely as a supply chain for developed market compliance buyers. What we are observing is a climate finance ecosystem emerging. Demand for climate finance is coming from various avenues; voluntary carbon markets, corporate net-zero targets, Article 6 opportunities, the aviation sector (e.g. CORSIA), and domestic compliance markets increasingly. We are seeing both India moving to establish a Carbon Credit Trading Scheme (CCTS), and also the Philippines seeking international carbon market engagement via both Article 6 and bilateral means. How do you reconcile differences in land records, digitization maturity, and governance capacity between India and the Philippines when designing a unified MRV framework? It is not about a unique MRV governance structure but about common output. At EcoGuard, we distinguish the data collection and the verification processes. Local entities might collect data in different ways, but final carbon accounting data sets should comply to standardized formats. Technology such as satellite imagery, remote sensing, GIS technologies, mobile applications, audit trail with blockchain enable transparency in order to avoid reliance to one specific administrative procedure. Interoperability is sought rather than uniformity; therefore, our systems incorporate local specificities without compromising global standards for transparency and verification. Is the carbon credit model equally viable in India’s diversified cropping systems compared to the Philippines’ plantation-oriented coconut economy—or are we comparing fundamentally different baselines? While the baselines differ, neither suggests one model is less feasible than the other. The opportunities in the Philippine coconut sector include agro-forestry, andbiomass improvement and restoration of the land-base. The opportunities in the Indian agricultural system are broad and include regenerative agriculture, rice methane abatement, agro-forestry, soil carbon enhancement, biochar and land management. Different farming systems require different approaches but both can deliver quantifiable climate benefits. In fact India's heterogeneity may lend itself to a wider portfolio of carbon projects whereas a focus on one crop system may allow for greater standardisation and scalability for the Philippines. Who ultimately captures more value in this architecture—smallholders in India and the Philippines, or the intermediaries structuring verification and credit issuance? This is one of the core issues of the carbon markets face today. EcoGuard strongly feels that enduring market credibility relies on significant value trickling down to the farmers and project beneficiaries. Without farmer value, project durability and community engagement are questionable. Technologies can further enable transparency in revenue flows by implementing digital registries, blockchain based transaction data and trackable payment mechanisms. Sustainable high-integrity carbon markets of the future will be recognized for fair benefit sharing and not for the volume of credits issued. Could aggressive carbon monetization in both countries unintentionally bias land-use decisions away from food security toward carbon-optimized crops? This is an important concern to be managed by all stakeholders involved:  policy makers, project developers and standards bodies. Carbon finance should supplement and not substitute food production. Best quality agricultural carbon projects typically optimize production, resilience, biodiversity and soil health at the same time. For coconut systems in the Philippines and a variety of Indian agroforestry systems, carbon benefits occur in addition to and not instead of food production. Robust methodology safeguards, alongside national policy frameworks are crucial to guarantee that food security will remain the over-arching land-use objective. Is this emerging India–Philippines carbon linkage a genuine climate finance democratization effort—or the creation of a transnational agricultural data and credit extraction system? It depends entirely on how the ecosystem is constructed. If carbons markets are transparently and farmer- owned, equitable revenue share structures are implemented and strong governance is enforced then markets can be transformative vehicles in democratizing climate finance, and channelling investment into rural communities that have been excluded from the global capital flows up until this point. However, if data ownership, benefit sharing and governance is flawed, then value could consolidate into the hands of a few intermediaries. EcoGuard aims to develop trusted digital infrastructure which instils farmer cooperatives, Governments, and buyers with both environmental and financial security; climate finance should empower agricultural communities, not solely extract environmental value from it. -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4153/operating-in-india-has-been-most-rigorous-real-world-stress-test-for-the-system-vinay-nair-ceo-founder-khetibuddy.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4153/operating-in-india-has-been-most-rigorous-real-world-stress-test-for-the-system-vinay-nair-ceo-founder-khetibuddy.html Wed, 24 Jun 2026 13:34:39 +0530 In an exclusive AgroSpectrum interview with Vinay Nair, CEO & Founder of KhetiBuddy, the discussion outlined the company’s global expansion strategy, beginning in India and North America and now extending to Europe as a natural next step driven by ecosystem readiness and structural opportunity. He emphasised that while India helped build a highly scalable, variability-driven platform for fragmented agricultural systems, Europe presents a contrasting challenge where digitisation already exists but lacks integration across farm, supply chain, and sustainability ecosystems. The interview highlighted KhetiBuddy’s differentiated approach of a standardised core platform with configurable localisation, enabling seamless adaptability across markets without compromising scalability or performance. What structural gaps or opportunities in European agriculture made it the right next market for KhetiBuddy, and how does that differ from the Indian smallholder context you started with?  Europe is not our first international market—it is the next logical step after our expansion into North America through Canada. Our global strategy has always been driven by ecosystem readiness and the ability to solve structural agricultural challenges, not just geographic scale. We began in India, one of the most complex agri ecosystems in the world, with fragmented landholdings, inconsistent data, and limited supply chain visibility. This forced us to build a highly scalable platform designed to operate in environments defined by variability and fragmentation, focusing on integration across farmers, input providers, financiers, and supply chains. Europe presents a different challenge. Agriculture there is already digitised, but systems remain fragmented. Farm data, supply chains, and sustainability frameworks exist independently without meaningful integration. Our focus in Europe is not digitisation, but integration—connecting existing systems to enable interoperability, unified visibility, and measurable outcomes across farm operations, compliance, and sustainability. European agriculture is highly regulated and technologically advanced. How do you adapt your model without losing the scalability that defines your operations in India?  Most agritech platforms struggle to scale globally because they are built around localised assumptions—specific crop patterns, regulatory environments, or market structures—that get embedded into the core architecture. As a result, when they enter new geographies, they often require significant re-engineering or complete redesign. Our approach is fundamentally different. We have deliberately built a standardised core platform that is consistent across markets. The underlying architecture—data models, workflows, and integration layers—remains uniform regardless of geography. What changes is not the core system, but the configuration layer on top of it. This configuration layer allows us to adapt key variables such as agronomic practices, regulatory and compliance frameworks, language interfaces, and operational workflows to suit each market. In other words, we separate the stable technology backbone from market-specific intelligence. Owing to this design, expansion from India to Europe is not a rebuild exercise. It is a controlled localisation process built on top of an already scalable foundation. This significantly reduces deployment complexity while ensuring consistency in platform performance. In fact, when architecture is designed correctly, localisation becomes a strength rather than a constraint. It enhances scalability by allowing the same core system to operate effectively across diverse agricultural ecosystems without losing adaptability or relevance. By entering Europe through a local partner, are you prioritising speed over control, and how do you mitigate risks around brand, data ownership, and execution quality?  In agriculture, entering a new market without a deep local context is one of the quickest paths to failure. The sector is shaped by regional agronomy, fragmented supply chains, entrenched relationships, and regulatory nuances that cannot be understood remotely or replicated through a purely technology-led approach. That is why our partnership-first model is intentional. We are not exchanging control for speed; we are replacing assumptions with on-ground insight. Instead of trying to own every layer of the ecosystem ourselves, we focus on bringing a robust platform while our partners contribute critical local strengths—trust networks, farmer relationships, market access, and execution capability. In this model, roles are clearly defined. We provide the technology backbone that standardizes data, workflows, and decision-making across markets. Our partners ensure contextual relevance by embedding the platform into existing rural and agricultural ecosystems, where relationships and credibility are essential for adoption. From a risk and governance perspective, the structure is deliberately balanced. Data ownership remains fully with the client, ensuring transparency and control at the source. Platform governance is centralized to maintain consistency, security, and scalability across geographies. At the same time, execution is standardized through our system, ensuring that processes, outputs, and performance benchmarks remain uniform. This means control is not diluted—it is restructured. Instead of being concentrated in one layer, it is distributed across ownership, governance, and execution in a way that preserves accountability while enabling scale and local relevance simultaneously. How do the economics of your services translate in a higher-cost market like Europe—does profitability improve with scale, or does it depend on premium positioning? The economics in Europe are fundamentally stronger, but that strength only translates if you are addressing the right set of problems. The nature of value creation in agriculture differs significantly between emerging and developed markets, and the monetisation model must reflect that shift. In India, agritech economics is largely volume-driven. Value is created by reaching scale across a large base of farmers, where services are often priced for affordability and adoption. The emphasis is on breadth—serving millions of farmers through low-cost, high-frequency transactions. In Europe, the structure is fundamentally different. The market is value-driven rather than volume-driven. Agribusinesses, cooperatives, and supply chain participants are not primarily investing in advisory services alone—they are investing in compliance, traceability, carbon accounting, and verifiable sustainability outcomes. These are not optional services; they are becoming mandatory requirements driven by regulation, ESG commitments, and global supply chain standards. This shifts the entire business model. Instead of cost-based pricing tied to service delivery, the opportunity moves toward outcome-based pricing, where value is linked to measurable impact—such as emissions reduction, audit readiness, supply chain transparency, or sustainability certification. In this context, scale still matters, but it plays a different role. Scale improves operating leverage and margin efficiency, but it is premium positioning and outcome credibility that determine success in the market. The ability to deliver verified, auditable, and integrated sustainability outcomes becomes the core value proposition, not just the ability to provide digital services at scale. To what extent are your agritech solutions—developed for Indian conditions—transferable to European farms with different crop systems, climate patterns, and mechanisation levels?  Our agritech solutions were not designed specifically for India—they were designed for variability. That distinction is critical when assessing their transferability to markets like Europe. The platform is fundamentally data-centric rather than crop-centric. This means it is not hardwired to any single agricultural system, crop type, or agronomic condition. Instead, it is built to process diverse data inputs and generate outcomes through configurable logic layers. As a result, adapting the system to a new geography does not require rebuilding the technology stack—it requires adjusting the underlying parameters, agronomic models, and regulatory rules that sit on top of it. In that sense, Europe is not a redevelopment challenge; it is a reconfiguration exercise. The core platform remains unchanged, while inputs such as crop calendars, mechanisation practices, compliance frameworks, and sustainability standards are localised to match regional conditions. In fact, operating in India has been the most rigorous real-world stress test for the system. We have already built and deployed across extreme variability—multiple crops, diverse climatic zones, fragmented landholdings, and inconsistent infrastructure. This forced us to design for complexity from day one. Compared to that, Europe is structurally more standardised. Farming systems are more uniform, data quality is higher, and mechanisation is more consistent. Paradoxically, this makes deployment simpler, not harder, because the range of variability we need to account for is narrower and more predictable. Europe’s stringent agricultural and environmental regulations can be a hurdle—do you see them as a constraint, or as a long-term competitive moat once you’re established?  In the short term, regulatory frameworks in Europe can feel restrictive, as they add layers of compliance, reporting, and validation that increase implementation complexity and time-to-market. However, over the long term, this same regulatory rigour acts as a powerful market filter that eliminates weak or non-compliant players and rewards only those with robust, transparent, and scalable systems. We view Europe’s regulatory environment not as a constraint, but as a structural moat in the making. Regulations around carbon accounting, traceability, food safety, and sustainability reporting are becoming deeply embedded into how the agri-ecosystem operates. These are not temporary requirements—they are evolving into permanent infrastructure for how agricultural value chains are governed and evaluated. Once a platform is fully aligned with these frameworks, its role shifts significantly. It is no longer just an external service provider; it becomes embedded within the compliance and reporting architecture of the ecosystem itself. Whether it is carbon measurement, supply chain traceability, or sustainability disclosures, the platform becomes a trusted layer through which data is generated, validated, and reported. This creates a much stronger form of defensibility. Instead of competing on features or pricing alone, the value shifts to system integration and regulatory alignment. At that point, switching costs increase significantly, and the platform becomes difficult to replace without disrupting compliance workflows and reporting continuity. In this sense, regulation does not just shape the market—it defines the entry barrier and ultimately determines who becomes structurally embedded in the ecosystem versus who remains peripheral. Unlike India, Europe already has a dense ecosystem of agritech players—what is the core differentiation that allows you to compete against well-funded incumbents?  Yes, Europe already has a large and mature agritech ecosystem, with many companies addressing specific parts of the agricultural value chain. However, most of these solutions are built to solve narrow, well-defined problems in isolation—farm management, traceability, precision agriculture, or sustainability reporting as separate use cases. The limitation is not the absence of technology; it is the fragmentation of it. Different systems operate independently, creating data silos across farm operations, supply chains, compliance frameworks, and sustainability reporting. As a result, agribusinesses often end up managing multiple platforms that do not communicate effectively with each other. Our approach is focused on solving this structural gap. Instead of competing as another point solution, we are building the connective layer that brings these fragmented systems together into a unified data backbone for agribusinesses. The objective is to enable interoperability across existing platforms rather than replace them. This means we sit above individual tools and systems, integrating data flows across farm operations, traceability systems, sustainability frameworks, and regulatory reporting structures. In doing so, we enable a single, consistent view of agricultural activity across the entire value chain. That is the fundamental distinction. We are not positioning ourselves as another standalone application in an already crowded landscape. We are building the underlying layer that allows all these systems to function together coherently, turning fragmented data into a connected, usable, and decision-ready ecosystem. As you expand internationally, how do you balance global growth ambitions with your original mission of supporting farmers at the grassroots level—does scale risk diluting impact?  Our mission has not changed in its intent—it has evolved in its scope and the level at which we intervene. We began at the farm level because that is where the challenges in agriculture are most immediate and visible—uncertain incomes, fragmented inputs, limited market access, and lack of reliable advisory. Working directly with farmers allowed us to understand ground realities in depth and build solutions rooted in real constraints rather than assumptions. However, over time, it became clear that sustainable, large-scale impact cannot be achieved by addressing farms in isolation. Agriculture is a systems-driven sector, where outcomes at the farm level are heavily influenced by decisions made upstream and downstream—by agribusinesses, supply chains, financial institutions, and policy frameworks. Owing to this, the real leverage lies not in optimising individual farms one by one, but in enabling the platforms and institutions that collectively influence thousands or even millions of farms at once. This includes improving how agribusinesses manage sourcing and distribution, how supply chains ensure traceability and efficiency, and how policymakers design and monitor agricultural interventions. This shift does not represent a departure from impact—it represents an evolution in how impact is created. Instead of limiting ourselves to direct, localised interventions, we are scaling our influence through system-level enablers that multiply outcomes across the ecosystem. In that sense, the work becomes more structural and far-reaching. We are not moving away from farmers or impact at the ground level; we are extending that impact by shaping the systems that determine farmer outcomes at scale. -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4145/why-future-of-food-security-depends-on-reducing-antibiotic-dependence-in-livestock.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4145/why-future-of-food-security-depends-on-reducing-antibiotic-dependence-in-livestock.html Tue, 23 Jun 2026 12:26:00 +0530 In an exclusive interview with AgroSpectrum, Alejandro Acosta, Livestock Economist and Policy Officer, FAO, cautioned that the projected rise in livestock antimicrobial use by 2040 could accelerate antimicrobial resistance (AMR), undermining animal health, farm profitability, food security and public health. Acosta emphasized that while reducing antimicrobial use delivers significant long-term economic benefits, the transition carries short-term costs that require targeted policy support, incentives and investment. He argued that preserving antimicrobial effectiveness should be treated as a global public good, given that the benefits extend far beyond individual farms and national borders. The FAO’s latest analysis suggests that improving productivity through better veterinary services, vaccination, biosecurity and husbandry practices offers the most effective pathway to reducing antimicrobial dependence without compromising livestock production. How does FAO’s latest assessment change the economic argument around antimicrobial use in livestock, particularly for policymakers balancing productivity and sustainability? Previous studies often presented antimicrobial use (AMU) reduction as a win-win proposition, assuming that lower use would automatically translate into economic gains. Our assessment suggests the reality is more nuanced. While reducing AMU delivers substantial economic, animal health and public health benefits in the long run, the transition is not costless, and the short-term economics can be challenging. In the early years, producers may face adjustment costs as they invest in improved biosecurity, vaccination, veterinary services and alternative disease prevention strategies. As a result, the immediate cost of action can be higher than the cost of maintaining existing practices. However, over time, the economic consequences of rising antimicrobial resistance (AMR) become significantly greater. The key policy challenge is therefore not whether to act, but how to support farmers through the transition so productivity, profitability and sustainability can advance together. With antimicrobial use in livestock projected to rise significantly by 2040, what are the biggest risks to food security, farm profitability and public health if current trends continue? Under the business-as-usual scenario, the projected increase in antimicrobial use (AMU) is not driven by higher use intensity, but by the expansion of livestock biomass required to meet growing global demand for animal-source foods. In other words, if AMU intensity remains broadly unchanged and productivity gains are insufficient to offset demand growth, total antimicrobial use will rise mechanically as livestock production expands. The main concern is that this trend could accelerate antimicrobial resistance (AMR). As resistance increases, treatments become less effective, animal diseases become harder to control, and producers face higher mortality rates, rising production costs and lower profitability. What may initially appear as a manageable production strategy can gradually undermine the economic efficiency of livestock systems. The implications extend beyond individual farms. In the long term, higher AMR could reduce global livestock production compared with scenarios where resistance is better controlled, affecting the availability and affordability of animal-source foods. This has direct consequences for food security, particularly as global demand for meat, milk and eggs continues to grow. From a public health perspective, the risks are equally significant. AMR is a One Health challenge that affects animals, humans and the environment simultaneously. If current trends continue, the long-term economic and societal costs of resistance could far outweigh the short-term benefits associated with continued reliance on antimicrobials, making preventive action increasingly important. The report suggests that the long-term costs of antimicrobial resistance far outweigh the short-term productivity gains from antimicrobial growth promoters. What evidence supports this conclusion? We first quantify the short-term productivity value of antimicrobial growth promoters (AGPs), and then compare it with the long-term economic losses associated with rising antimicrobial resistance (AMR). AGPs can provide measurable gains in growth performance and feed efficiency, which explains why they continue to be used in many livestock systems, particularly where disease pressure is high and access to alternatives remains limited. However, our analysis shows that these short-term benefits are significantly outweighed by the long-term economic consequences of increasing resistance. By 2040, cumulative livestock production losses under a high-AMR scenario are projected to reach approximately $ 318 billion, compared with about $ 53 billion under a severe AGP phase-out scenario. The key point is that while AGPs may deliver immediate productivity gains, AMR gradually erodes the effectiveness of antimicrobial treatments, making animal diseases harder and more expensive to control. Over time, this can lead to higher mortality, reduced productivity, increased production costs and lower farm profitability. The report therefore demonstrates that the economic risks of inaction are substantially greater than the costs associated with reducing reliance on growth-promoting antimicrobials and investing in preventive animal health measures. Why does FAO believe antimicrobial effectiveness should be treated as a global public good, and what would that mean in practical policy terms? The costs of reducing antimicrobial use (AMU) are often local and immediate, while the benefits of preserving antimicrobial effectiveness are global and long-term. This creates a misalignment of incentives, where farmers and countries bear the transition costs today, while the benefits are shared widely and materialize over time. For example, producers may need to invest in biosecurity, vaccination, improved husbandry, veterinary services and other preventive measures to reduce antimicrobial dependence. These investments require resources upfront, while the benefits of slowing antimicrobial resistance extend far beyond individual farms or national borders. This is why FAO considers antimicrobial effectiveness a global public good. Preserving it benefits animal health, food security, public health and the sustainability of agrifood systems worldwide. In practical policy terms, this means stewardship cannot rely solely on regulations or restrictions. It requires coordinated investments, economic incentives and transition support that help farmers adopt better practices without compromising productivity or profitability. The report highlights the need for stronger veterinary services, improved surveillance and diagnostics, wider access to alternatives, sustainable financing mechanisms and market incentives that reward responsible antimicrobial use. Ultimately, preserving antimicrobial effectiveness requires collective action because the benefits are shared globally, while the costs of transition are often borne locally. What kinds of investments and incentives are needed to help farmers transition away from routine antimicrobial use without compromising productivity? The transition should be built around FAO’s RENOFARM approach, which focuses on reducing the need for antimicrobials rather than simply restricting their use. The objective is not to take tools away from farmers, but to create production systems where animals are healthier, disease risks are lower, and reliance on routine antimicrobial use becomes unnecessary. To achieve this, FAO promotes the Farm 5Gs framework: Good Health Services, Good Production Practices, Good Alternatives, Good Incentives and Good Connections. This starts with investments in the fundamentals of animal health. Strengthening veterinary services, disease surveillance, diagnostics, vaccination programmes, biosecurity measures and improved husbandry practices can significantly reduce disease pressure on farms. These preventive measures help producers maintain productivity while reducing their dependence on antimicrobials as a routine management tool. Access to effective alternatives, including vaccines and other non-antibiotic interventions, is also critical, particularly in regions where disease risks remain high. However, technical solutions alone are not enough. One of the key findings of our report is that the transition carries real costs, especially in the early years. Farmers may need to invest in infrastructure upgrades, improved farm management systems, staff training or preventive animal health measures before the benefits become fully visible. Without support, these upfront costs can discourage adoption. This is why incentives are equally important. Farmers need access to finance, technical assistance and extension services that help them implement better practices. Market-based incentives can also play a significant role. Certification schemes, price premiums, sustainability-linked procurement programmes and other value-chain rewards can help compensate producers for the investments they make in responsible antimicrobial stewardship. The report also highlights the importance of stronger connections across the value chain. Producers, veterinarians, processors, retailers, financial institutions and policymakers all have a role to play in supporting the transition. When farmers are provided with the right combination of knowledge, financing, market access and technical support, it becomes possible to reduce antimicrobial use without sacrificing productivity or profitability. Ultimately, successful antimicrobial stewardship is not about imposing restrictions. It is about creating an enabling environment where farmers can adopt healthier, more productive and more resilient production systems while remaining economically competitive.  How can veterinary services, biosecurity measures, vaccination programmes and improved husbandry practices reduce dependence on antimicrobials in livestock systems?   These interventions reduce dependence on antimicrobials by addressing the root causes of disease rather than relying on treatment after disease occurs. Each plays a distinct but complementary role in strengthening animal health and improving the resilience of livestock production systems. For example, biosecurity measures help prevent the introduction and spread of pathogens by improving farm hygiene, controlling animal movements, managing visitor access and strengthening sanitation practices. By reducing disease exposure, farms face fewer outbreaks and consequently require fewer antimicrobial treatments. Vaccination programmes reduce the incidence and severity of infectious diseases by building immunity within animal populations. When animals are better protected against common diseases, the need for therapeutic or preventive antimicrobial use declines significantly, while productivity and animal welfare are maintained. Similarly, strong veterinary services and diagnostics enable earlier disease detection, more accurate treatment decisions and better herd health management. This helps ensure that antimicrobials are used only when genuinely needed and in an appropriate manner, rather than as a routine precautionary measure. Improved husbandry practices, including better nutrition, housing, animal welfare, stocking densities and overall farm management, reduce stress and disease pressure in livestock systems. Healthier animals are naturally more resilient and less susceptible to infections, which lowers the need for antimicrobial interventions. Together, these measures shift livestock production from a treatment-based approach to a prevention-based approach. They make antimicrobials less necessary as a routine risk-management tool while protecting productivity, farm profitability and long-term sustainability. This is the core principle behind FAO’s RENOFARM approach: reducing the need for antimicrobials through stronger animal health systems rather than relying solely on restrictions on antimicrobial use. The report highlights major regional differences in antimicrobial use, particularly across Asia-Pacific, South America and Africa. How should policy responses be tailored to these varying realities? While antimicrobial use patterns vary considerably across regions, the fundamental policy objective should remain the same everywhere: reduce antimicrobial use (AMU) intensity while increasing animal productivity. The report shows that changes in livestock biomass alone have relatively limited influence on total AMU. The main leverage comes from lowering the amount of antimicrobials used per unit of production through better productivity, greater efficiency and stronger preventive animal health management. That said, the pathways to achieving this objective will differ depending on regional realities. In some regions, particularly where livestock systems are rapidly expanding, the priority may be strengthening veterinary services, disease surveillance, vaccination coverage and biosecurity measures to ensure productivity growth does not translate into proportionally higher antimicrobial use. In others, the focus may be on improving farm management practices, promoting technology adoption and increasing access to alternatives that reduce dependence on routine antimicrobial use. The report projects that Asia and the Pacific will continue to account for the largest share of global livestock antimicrobial use by 2040, reflecting both the scale of livestock production and growing demand for animal-source foods. South America is also expected to remain a significant contributor, while Africa, despite a smaller overall share, is projected to experience some of the fastest growth rates in livestock production and antimicrobial demand. These differences underline the need for context-specific implementation strategies. However, regardless of geography, the most effective long-term approach is to improve animal health and production efficiency. Investments in biosecurity, vaccination, diagnostics, veterinary services and improved husbandry practices can simultaneously enhance productivity and reduce AMU intensity. This creates a pathway where producers can meet growing demand for animal-source foods while limiting the risk of accelerating antimicrobial resistance. Ultimately, the report suggests that successful antimicrobial stewardship is not about reducing production; it is about producing more efficiently and sustainably. The policy tools may vary across regions, but the strategic goal remains consistent: healthier animals, higher productivity and lower reliance on antimicrobials. What role can market-based mechanisms, trade policies and supply-chain standards play in accelerating responsible antimicrobial stewardship across the global livestock sector? Market-based mechanisms can play a critical role in accelerating responsible antimicrobial stewardship by helping to offset the transition costs associated with reducing routine antimicrobial use (AMU). One of the key challenges highlighted in our report is that while the benefits of preserving antimicrobial effectiveness are long-term and broadly shared, the costs of changing production practices are often immediate and borne by farmers. Economic incentives can help bridge this gap. Certification schemes, product labels and price premiums can function much like a “green premium,” rewarding producers who adopt responsible antimicrobial-use practices. When consumers, retailers and food companies recognize and value these practices, producers receive a direct economic signal that supports investment in improved animal health management, biosecurity, vaccination and other preventive measures. Supply-chain standards can further accelerate change by establishing clear expectations for responsible antimicrobial use across production systems. Food processors, retailers and exporters increasingly require suppliers to meet sustainability and animal health standards, creating incentives for producers to align with best practices. These standards can also improve transparency, traceability and accountability throughout the livestock value chain. Trade policies can complement these efforts by encouraging greater convergence around internationally recognized antimicrobial stewardship principles. As global markets place increasing emphasis on food safety, sustainability and responsible production, compliance with antimicrobial-use standards may become an important factor in maintaining market access and competitiveness. This is particularly relevant for export-oriented livestock sectors seeking to meet evolving consumer and regulatory expectations. However, market incentives should not be viewed as a substitute for public investment. They work best when combined with supportive policies, veterinary services, technical assistance and access to alternatives that enable farmers to make the transition successfully. The objective is to create an environment where responsible antimicrobial stewardship is not only a regulatory requirement but also an economically attractive business decision. Ultimately, aligning market signals with animal health and sustainability goals can help accelerate the adoption of responsible practices across the global livestock sector while supporting productivity, profitability and long-term food security. -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com)   ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4138/why-asias-pork-producers-are-increasingly-vulnerable-to-global-trade-disruptions.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4138/why-asias-pork-producers-are-increasingly-vulnerable-to-global-trade-disruptions.html Mon, 22 Jun 2026 11:40:33 +0530 In an exclusive interview with AgroSpectrum, Juver Membrebe (Technical Manager (Swine), ASEAN, South Korea, Australia and New Zealand, Boehringer Ingelheim) argues that the biggest threat from ongoing Strait of Hormuz disruptions is not direct agricultural damage but the cascading impact on feed costs, animal health inputs, freight networks, and pork production economics. He warns that food security across Asia-Pacific is increasingly tied to global supply chain resilience, as import-dependent feed and veterinary supply systems become more vulnerable to geopolitical shocks. Membrebe highlights that rising input costs and persistent disease risks are creating a dual-margin squeeze that is accelerating consolidation across the region’s swine industry. As volatility becomes a permanent feature of global commerce, he contends that robust biosecurity, resilient animal health systems, and coordinated supply chain strategies will be critical to safeguarding pork production and food affordability. With the Strait of Hormuz emerging as a persistent geopolitical flashpoint, is the Asia-Pacific swine and pork ecosystem now effectively exposed to energy geopolitics through feed costs, logistics inflation, and veterinary supply chain stress rather than direct agricultural disruption? For the swine sector, the feed grain prices are sensitive to energy costs at every stage, from fertilizer production to freight. Disruptions to ammonia and nitrogen shipments directly affect fertilizer availability and cost, and when shipping routes are disrupted or insurance premiums spike, that pressure moves quickly through to landed feed costs across ASEAN and North Asia. Veterinary inputs, including vaccines and biologicals, follow similar pathways. Vietnam illustrates this dynamic clearly. With a pig herd of roughly 26 million head and pork production of around 3.2 million tonnes carcass weight equivalent in 2024, Vietnam is one of the region’s most significant pork producers. At the same time, the sector remains structurally dependent on imported feed ingredients, which are priced in $ (USD) and highly sensitive to global energy and freight costs. So, while the current tensions surrounding the Strait of Hormuz do not destroy a soybean crop or shut down a slaughterhouse directly, it can quietly erode the economic viability of pork production across the region within one to two production cycles. From where I sit, working across markets as different as Vietnam, Korea, and Australia, the vulnerability is not theoretical. It is already being felt in margin conversations at farm level, reinforcing the need for resilient, well-supported production systems. Across ASEAN and South Korea, pork demand is structurally high, yet feed and swine health inputs remain import-dependent. Has food security in these markets quietly shifted from production risk to global supply chain risk concentration? That shift is already underway, and it has happened gradually enough that policies have not fully adapted. In the past, food security in this region was mainly viewed through the lens of domestic production, animal health and disease control, and farm productivity. Those factors remain critical, but the nature of risk has broadened. Today, producers in markets like Vietnam or the Philippines can operate well-managed farms with healthy animals and strong local demand yet still face pressure on profitability due to factors beyond their immediate control—such as the cost and availability of key inputs like feed ingredients. This underscores the growing importance of strengthening resilience at the farm level. In Vietnam, pork remains the dominant meat protein, accounting for roughly half of total meat consumption, making it highly influential in household food spending and inflation dynamics. That structural reliance means any disruption to production economics can translate to wider social and economic impacts, not just commercial ones. The same dynamic holds across Thailand, the Philippines, and South Korea. Swine health management—particularly vaccines, therapeutics, and biosecurity inputs—relies on highly globalised pharmaceutical supply chains. Are these becoming a second systemic vulnerability layer beyond feed inflation? This dimension is often overlooked because veterinary inputs represent a smaller share of total cost than feed. However, their importance to overall production stability is far greater than their cost would suggest. Vaccines and biologicals are not interchangeable commodities. Their development, regulatory approval, handling requirements, and quality standards reflect years of investment and strict oversight. In today’s environment, ensuring consistent availability and reliability of these products has become more complex, which highlights the importance of strong partnerships between producers and trusted animal health providers to maintain access to high-quality solutions. In Vietnam, pork production is forecasted to grow modestly in 2026, supported primarily by large-scale integrated producers, while smaller operations continue to face disease and cost pressure. In that context, interruptions to vaccine or biological supply are not a minor inconvenience. They are a direct threat to herd stability and production continuity. Ensuring supply reliability and contingency planning in health management is therefore not optional; it is a core pillar of risk management. To what extent are rising feed costs, driven by energy-linked grain and freight volatility, fundamentally altering herd economics across ASEAN pork producers, particularly small and mid-scale operations? The impact on small and mid-scale producers is severe and, in many cases, structurally consequential. Feed typically represents around 60–70 per cent of total swine production cost. When that number rises because of freight inflation or energy-linked grain price volatility, the first cuts are often made in preventive health and biosecurity. Vietnam again demonstrates this. ASF outbreaks in recent years have disproportionately affected backyard and smallholder farms, where biosecurity investment is low, and economic buffers are limited. The farms least able to absorb cost volatility are also the most exposed to disease risk. That interaction between input cost pressure and biosecurity capacity is one of the most critical challenges facing the ASEAN swine sector today, and one where strengthening prevention and on-farm practices remain essential. South Korea operates one of the most biosecure and technologically advanced pork systems in the region. Does its model offer genuine insulation from global shocks, or merely delay transmission of feed and input inflation? South Korea’s biosecurity infrastructure is genuinely world-class, and its disease management outcomes are among the best in Asia. However, biosecurity protects against pathogens, not commodity price volatility. Korea remains dependent on imported feed ingredients, and global grain and freight dynamics transmit directly into farm economics regardless of health system strength. What Korea’s model does provide is resilience at the production layer. Effective disease control prevents risk compounding, allowing producers to focus on managing cost pressure rather than simultaneous health crises. That is a significant advantage, and it highlights the value of strong preventive health systems supported by science-based approaches. Australia and New Zealand are often viewed as structurally resilient due to domestic feed availability. However, are they increasingly exposed through imported veterinary inputs, pharmaceuticals, and energy-sensitive logistics chains? Australia and New Zealand benefit from a strong structural advantage in having reliable domestic feed grain production. It provides a level of stability that many other markets do not have. However, this does not mean they are insulated from broader pressures. Both countries still rely on externally sourced veterinary medicines, vaccines, and other specialized inputs that are critical to animal health and production. In addition, operating costs remain sensitive to changes in areas such as energy and transportation, which can influence overall production efficiency. Is the regional pork trade across ASEAN, South Korea, and Oceania still a collection of national markets, or has it effectively become a synchronized pricing system where global feed shocks propagate almost instantaneously? The reality sits between the two, but regional markets are becoming more interconnected, and this is happening faster than policies are adjusting. While each country still has its own production base and demand dynamics, price movements are increasingly influenced by common external factors, particularly feed costs, import flows used to balance supply, and process economics. What has changed most is the speed at which these influences are felt. Markets are not fully unified, but they are reacting more quickly to similar pressures. As a result, maintaining stable and efficient production systems—supported by strong animal health and preventive practices—has become even more important in managing volatility and ensuring consistent supply. With swine health risks rising alongside input cost pressures, are producers being forced into a dual-margin squeeze that accelerates consolidation and vertically integrated agribusiness dominance across the region? Yes, this is a clear trend across the region. As costs rise and disease risks persist, producers are facing increasing pressure on profitability from multiple directions. Those with greater financial resources are better positioned to adapt as they can invest in efficiency, strengthen farm management, and scale their operations. Others, particularly smaller producers, often have fewer options and face more difficult choices. Vietnam provides a clear example, where the sector is gradually shifting from household-scale farming toward larger, more structured operations. Similar patterns are emerging in markets like Thailand and the Philippines. From an animal health perspective, larger operations can support more consistent investment in preventive care and biosecurity, which helps improve overall stability. At the same time, it is important that smaller and transitioning producers are not left behind. Ensuring access to knowledge, practical tools, and best practices will be key to helping them adapt and remain part of the sector’s long-term development. How significant is maritime insurance inflation and shipping volatility—rather than actual supply shortages—in reshaping pork trade flows and import dependency across Asia-Pacific markets? This is an important but often overlooked factor shaping how markets evolve. Sudden shortages tend to draw immediate attention and response from both industry and policymakers. In contrast, gradual increases in underlying costs are less visible, which can make their overall impact easier to underestimate until they begin to significantly affect prices. Higher energy, fertilizer, and transport costs, feed through into food costs and can intensify cost‑of‑living pressures. At what point does pork in Asia-Pacific transition from a commodity market into a strategic food security asset, requiring coordinated regional buffers for feed grains, veterinary inputs, and cross-border trade stabilization mechanisms? In many ways, this shift is already happening, even if it is not always explicitly defined. Pork plays a central role in diets, economies, and livelihoods across Asia-Pacific, so periods of disruption—whether from disease or rising costs—quickly highlight its broader importance beyond a typical agricultural product. Vietnam is a strong example. With a population of over 100 million and pork as a primary protein source, any disruption to supply can affect food prices and the wider economy almost immediately. Managing such situations has required close coordination between government, industry, and external partners, rather than isolated actions. More broadly, a range of ongoing pressures—from disease risks to rising production costs—are prompting countries to think more proactively about how to maintain stable and reliable production. This includes improving access to key inputs, strengthening animal health practices, and ensuring markets can continue to function smoothly even during periods of stress. While formal regional coordination is still developing, there is a growing recognition that maintaining stability in pork production is important not only for the sector itself, but also for food affordability, economic resilience, and rural livelihoods. As a result, pork is increasingly viewed as an essential part of the food system that requires sustained attention and forward planning. -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4137/real-supply-chain-crisis-isnt-visibilityits-decision-latency.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/interviews/91/4137/real-supply-chain-crisis-isnt-visibilityits-decision-latency.html Fri, 19 Jun 2026 18:39:01 +0530 In an exclusive interview with AgroSpectrum, Shail Khiyara, CEO of SWARM Engineering, argues that the real threat posed by a potential disruption in the Strait of Hormuz is not any single shock, but the simultaneous collision of fertilizer shortages, energy price spikes, freight disruptions and shifting export demand that can overwhelm conventional planning systems. Khiyara contends that agrifood and manufacturing companies are entering an era where geopolitical volatility is no longer an exception but the operating environment, rendering traditional supply-chain models built on historical data increasingly obsolete. He makes the case that the next competitive frontier is not access to data, scale or capital, but decision-making speed and quality, with "decision latency" emerging as a hidden cost that erodes margins and resilience. As geopolitical risks intensify, Khiyara believes decision intelligence—rather than generative AI—will become the defining technology category for operators seeking to navigate uncertainty and turn disruption into competitive advantage. The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the world's most critical geopolitical chokepoints. From an operational decision-making perspective, how exposed are today's agrifood and manufacturing supply chains to a major disruption in the region, and do companies fully understand that risk? The exposure is real but it is often misunderstood. The most direct impact of a Hormuz disruption on agrifood is not the food imports, but the fertilizer. That said there are areas without fresh water like the UAE that does survive on food imports.  Urea and ammonia move through Gulf ports and a disruption reprices input costs for grain and row crop producers almost immediately. The second impact is energy. Oil price spikes hit transportation, cold chain, and food processing operations simultaneously. The third is export demand. The Gulf is a major destination for U.S. and Australian wheat exports to Middle East and North Africa markets. When those lanes constrict, global grain pricing shifts and North American and South American producers feel it in demand and margin. Do companies understand that risk? Most do not. They understand it in isolation, fertilizer costs go up, freight goes up. What they do not understand is how those shocks interact simultaneously across their operation and compound into a decision crisis that their planning tools were never built to handle. The risk is not that companies do not have the data. It is that they do not understand how the shocks interact. When fertilizer, energy, and export demand move simultaneously, the planning system does not just slow down. It breaks. For decades, supply-chain planning has largely been built around historical data and predictable trade flows. In an era of geopolitical shocks—from the Strait of Hormuz to the Red Sea—has the traditional planning model fundamentally broken down? The traditional planning model was built on two assumptions that no longer hold. First, that disruptions are exceptions. Second, that you have days to respond. Historical data and predictable trade flows gave planners a stable foundation to work from. Adjust last year's plan for this year's forecast and you were mostly right. That model worked when the exceptions were rare enough to manage manually. What has changed is the frequency and simultaneity of disruption. Tariffs, Hormuz, Red Sea, climate events, labor volatility. These are no longer exceptions. They are the operating environment. And they do not arrive one at a time. They arrive together, each one interacting with the others in ways that historical data cannot predict and manual planning cannot resolve fast enough. The traditional model has not just broken down. It has become a liability. Every day an organization relies on it is a day it is making decisions with tools built for a world that no longer exists. Many executives talk about resilience, but resilience often comes at the expense of efficiency. How can AI help companies navigate that trade-off when energy prices, freight costs, and sourcing risks can change overnight because of geopolitical events? The resilience versus efficiency trade-off is real but it is often framed incorrectly. Most organizations treat it as a binary choice, meaning build buffer inventory and sacrifice efficiency, or run lean and accept vulnerability. AI changes that framing entirely. I have spent my career inside operational environments where that trade-off was not theoretical. It was measured in contract penalties, lost production, and margin that disappeared before the quarter closed. The operators who navigated it best were never the ones who chose one over the other. They were the ones who could see both simultaneously and move faster than the situation could deteriorate. The trade-off exists in most organizations today because planning systems cannot evaluate resilience and efficiency simultaneously across thousands of variables in real time. They optimize for one at the expense of the other because they cannot hold both at once. Decision intelligence changes that.  When a system can run hundreds of scenarios simultaneously across your entire operation, it finds the options that protect efficiency and build resilience at the same time. And with no extra buffer stock everywhere. The right inventory, in the right place, for the right risk. The companies that figure this out will not have to choose between resilience and efficiency. In a world where disruption is the operating environment, that choice is a false one. The real question is whether your planning architecture can hold both simultaneously. Decision intelligence can. Legacy tools cannot. And the gap between those two realities is now measured in margin. The risk is not that companies do not have the data. It is that they do not understand how the shocks interact. When fertilizer, energy, and export demand move simultaneously, the planning system does not just slow down. It breaks. A closure or disruption of the Strait of Hormuz would likely trigger ripple effects across fuel markets, transportation networks, fertilizer supplies, and food production costs. Which sectors within agrifood and manufacturing do you believe are most vulnerable, and why? The most vulnerable sectors are those where the Hormuz impact chains are longest and fastest. Grain and oilseed production is most directly exposed through fertilizer. Urea and ammonia price spikes hit input costs immediately and ripple through the entire food value chain from farm to processor to consumer. Protein production, poultry, pork, and aquaculture, is doubly exposed. Feed costs spike through the fertilizer and grain channel. Energy costs hit processing and cold chain simultaneously. And, customer commitments made 60 days earlier can become margin-negative overnight. Food manufacturing and processing is exposed through energy costs, packaging materials, and transportation. A plant running 3 shifts suddenly faces a cost structure that the pricing model cannot absorb. The common thread across all of them is simultaneity. It is not one shock. It is several hitting at once, each one amplifying the others, in organizations that are still planning sequentially. One of SWARM's core propositions is scenario modelling. If a major Hormuz-related disruption occurred tomorrow, how quickly could AI-driven systems generate actionable alternatives compared to conventional planning processes that may take days or weeks? The contrast is stark and it is measurable. When a Hormuz disruption hits, a conventional planning team splits the problem. Supply works the fertilizer and input cost problem. Logistics works the freight problem. Commercial works the customer commitments. Three teams, three spreadsheets, three versions of reality that will not reconcile until Thursday. By then the market has moved again. With SWARM, the system takes in the new information immediately and evaluates hundreds of options across your entire operation at once.  Everything simultaneously. Within minutes the operations team has a ranked set of options showing the financial impact of each path forward, with clear assumptions they can review and act on immediately. The difference is not incremental, it's structural. When disruption moves by the hour, the gap between minutes and days is the difference between managing the situation and being managed by it. Supply-chain disruptions often expose a hidden problem: organizations have data, but lack decision agility. Is the real competitive advantage today no longer access to information, but the ability to make high-quality decisions faster than competitors? Yes. And this is the most underappreciated insight in enterprise AI right now. Every organization has data and most organizations have too much of it. The problem has never been access to information, but rather the gap between having information and making a high quality decision with it, fast enough to matter. That gap is what we call decision latency. And in agrifood and manufacturing today, decision latency is the single most expensive line item that does not appear on any income statement. It shows up as margin erosion, missed commitments, excess inventory, and suboptimal pricing. Quietly, every quarter, before anyone connects it to the speed of the decision that caused it. The organizations that will define the next decade of agrifood and manufacturing are not necessarily the ones with the most data, the most capital, or the largest operations. They are the ones that have closed the gap between when disruption happens and when a high quality decision can be made. That gap is measurable. And it is closable. That is the real competitive advantage and it is available right now to any organization willing to build for it. Agrifood supply chains are increasingly being shaped by factors outside agriculture itself—energy security, shipping routes, trade restrictions, and geopolitical alliances. Does this require a completely new operating model for food companies, and how can AI support that transition? Yes it does. And the change is more fundamental than most food companies realize. The old model was built around the planning cycle. You gathered data, built a plan, executed against it, and adjusted next month. That worked when the world moved slowly enough for a monthly plan to stay valid. Geopolitical volatility has compressed that cadence to hours. A tariff announcement, a shipping lane closure, an energy price spike. These do not wait for your planning cycle. They arrive in the middle of it and invalidate assumptions you made 48 hours ago. The new model requires three things most food companies do not yet have. Systems that take in live data as conditions change. The ability to evaluate hundreds of options across the entire operation at once rather than function by function. And outputs the team can act on immediately rather than recommendations that take days to validate before anyone commits. AI does not just support that transition. For most organizations it is the only way to make it real. The companies that make this shift will not just survive geopolitical volatility. They will use it as a competitive weapon while their competitors are still rebuilding spreadsheets. We've seen enormous investor enthusiasm around generative AI, yet companies facing geopolitical volatility often need optimization rather than content generation. Do events like the uncertainty around the Strait of Hormuz strengthen the case for decision intelligence as the next major AI category? Events like these play a huge role. Timing matters. The first wave of enterprise AI investment went into generative AI, large language models, content generation, and conversational interfaces. Those tools are genuinely useful for certain tasks.  But they were not built for the problem that operations leaders in agrifood and manufacturing face every day. A generative AI model can draft a report about a supply chain disruption. It cannot tell you which customer commitments to protect, which logistics lanes to activate, and where your margin exposure sits, all simultaneously, in minutes, with auditable assumptions. Geopolitical volatility is accelerating the recognition that the most valuable AI application in the physical economy is not content generation. It is decision optimization. The ability to evaluate thousands of operational scenarios simultaneously and surface the options that best protect margin, fulfill commitments, and manage risk in real time. That is decision intelligence. And events like Hormuz, the Red Sea disruptions, and tariff volatility are making the case for it faster than any marketing campaign could.  Every operations leader who has watched their planning team spend three days rebuilding a spreadsheet while the market moved understands intuitively why this category exists. The question is no longer whether decision intelligence is valuable. It is which organizations will build for it first. Hormuz did not create the case for decision intelligence. It revealed it. Looking ahead, if geopolitical volatility becomes a permanent feature of global commerce rather than an occasional disruption, what will separate the winners from the losers in agrifood and manufacturing over the next decade: scale, data, capital—or decision-making capability? Not scale, data or capital. Decision making capability and speed. Scale can be a liability in a volatile environment if the organization cannot make decisions fast enough to adapt it. Data is abundant and increasingly cheap. Capital is available to any organization with a compelling thesis. None of those things are the constraint. The constraint is decision latency.  The gap between when the environment changes and when a high-quality response can be made and executed. That gap is where margin disappears, where customer relationships erode, and where competitors who move faster gain ground that is very hard to recover. The organizations that will define agrifood and manufacturing over the next decade are the ones that treat decision making capability as a strategic asset, not an operational afterthought. The ones that invest in systems that understand how their industry actually works, not generic tools adapted after the fact. The ones that can act on what they know before the window closes. The operators who win are not the ones with the most data. They are the ones who can act on it before the window closes. That has always been true. What has changed is that the window is now measured in hours, not days. And the tools to close that gap exist today. SWARM was built for that moment - the focus on the operator.  We are in the Operator’s decade. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/4130/why-americas-largest-food-assistance-program-is-trapped-between-waste-incentives-and-politics.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/4130/why-americas-largest-food-assistance-program-is-trapped-between-waste-incentives-and-politics.html Thu, 18 Jun 2026 15:29:47 +0530 The battle over SNAP is no longer simply about welfare spending. It is about incentives, federalism and whether America’s anti-hunger safety net can remain effective without becoming fiscally unaccountable The debate surrounding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) has long been framed as a contest between compassion and fiscal discipline. One side views food assistance as an indispensable safeguard against hunger and poverty. The other points to mounting evidence of payment errors, weak oversight and a system increasingly vulnerable to waste. Yet the latest controversy surrounding SNAP suggests that the programme’s deepest challenge may not be fraud, bureaucracy or inadequate enforcement. Rather, it may be the incentives embedded within its very architecture. Recent analyses from the Cato Institute argue that America’s largest food assistance programme suffers from a structural accountability deficit. Whether examining state-level manipulation of payment error rates, congressional reform proposals, or debates over mass recertification, the central conclusion remains remarkably consistent: states administer SNAP, but Washington finances almost all of it. Responsibility and accountability have become divorced from one another. The implications extend far beyond technical discussions about welfare administration. They touch upon fundamental questions of governance, federalism and the long-term sustainability of one of the largest social programmes in the United States. A $100 Billion Programme with a Growing Integrity Challenge SNAP has expanded into one of the most significant pillars of the American welfare state. Federal spending on the programme reached approximately $100 billion in fiscal year 2024, providing food assistance to tens of millions of Americans. Yet concerns about programme integrity have grown alongside its size. According to estimates cited by Cato Institute researchers, improper payments amounted to roughly $10.5 billion annually. Importantly, improper payments do not necessarily imply fraud. They include overpayments, underpayments, eligibility errors, reporting inaccuracies and administrative mistakes. Nonetheless, the scale of the problem is difficult to dismiss. When nearly one-tenth of programme expenditures are classified as improper, policymakers inevitably begin asking whether the problem lies not merely in execution but in the design of the system itself. The answer, critics argue, lies in SNAP’s unusual division of responsibilities. State governments process applications, determine eligibility, conduct interviews and administer benefits. However, while states share some administrative costs, the federal government covers 100 per cent of SNAP benefit expenditures. This creates what economists describe as a classic moral hazard problem: the entity making decisions does not fully bear the consequences of those decisions. The Incentive Problem at the Heart of SNAP Imagine a bank empowered to issue loans while another institution absorbs all potential losses. Lending standards would almost certainly weaken because the consequences of poor decisions would be borne elsewhere. Critics contend that SNAP operates according to a similar logic. State agencies incur costs when conducting rigorous eligibility reviews, strengthening verification systems or investigating questionable claims. These activities require staff, technology and administrative investment. Yet the financial benefits generated by preventing improper payments flow primarily to federal taxpayers rather than state budgets. The result is a system in which states often possess stronger incentives to maximise enrolment and minimise administrative burdens than to aggressively police payment accuracy. For decades, this tension remained largely academic. Increasingly, however, it is becoming visible in policy outcomes. The Alaska Carveout and the Politics of Unintended Consequences The clearest illustration emerged from provisions included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which introduced a new cost-sharing mechanism intended to strengthen accountability. Beginning in fiscal year 2028, states with SNAP payment error rates exceeding six per cent would be required to absorb between five and fifteen per cent of programme benefit costs. The principle was simple: if states bore some financial consequences for administrative failures, they would have stronger incentives to improve performance. However, lawmakers also inserted what became known as the "Alaska Carveout." The provision granted temporary relief to states with exceptionally high error rates, ostensibly providing additional time to improve programme administration before financial penalties took effect. What appeared politically expedient soon revealed itself as economically problematic. As Romina Boccia, Director of Budget and Entitlement Policy at the Cato Institute, argues: "Nearly 1 of every 9 dollars spent on SNAP was paid improperly in fiscal year 2025. The OBBBA aimed to address this by requiring states to foot the bill for some of the SNAP benefits they provide if their payment error rates exceed 6 percent. The Alaska Carveout, however, inadvertently incentivizes the very failure the reform was meant to correct. It was a last-minute provision shoehorned into the bill to get it past the Senate. In theory, it was meant to give states with the highest improper payments more time to reduce their error rates. In practice, it weakens OBBBA's reforms, rewards the worst-performing states while penalizing those making good-faith efforts to reduce their payment errors, and delays the spending reductions meant to offset the bill's tax cuts. Officials from some states are even keeping their error rates elevated to qualify for the temporary exemption." The irony is striking. A reform designed to reward accuracy and accountability may have created incentives to preserve poor performance. States approaching the exemption threshold suddenly found themselves confronting a perverse calculation: improve too quickly and incur financial obligations; remain above the threshold and continue enjoying temporary protection. Reports emerging from several jurisdictions suggested that officials became acutely aware of these distorted incentives. Whether such behaviour proves widespread is almost secondary to the broader lesson. Once policy rewards failure and penalises improvement, dysfunctional outcomes become entirely predictable. Beyond Bad Actors: A Structural Problem For Romina, the Alaska Carveout merely exposes a deeper flaw. As she argues: "However, this problem runs deeper than a few bad actors. SNAP's integrity problems are the predictable result of a financing structure in which states administer the program while federal taxpayers cover nearly all its costs. States have little incentive to police improper payments when the costs of mismanagement fall on someone else, and the exploitation of the Alaska Carveout is only the latest example of this moral hazard problem. Taxpayers should demand greater accountability for where their money goes, and pushing for Congress to eliminate provisions like the Alaska Carveout is a good place to start. A better fix is for Congress to end federal funding for SNAP and leave nutrition assistance to state and local governments. States that choose to run such programs would answer directly to the constituents funding them, who are far better positioned to hold them accountable." Her argument reflects a broader public-choice critique of welfare administration: institutions respond to incentives, not intentions. The Alaska Carveout did not create the underlying problem. It merely exposed the contradictions already embedded within the programme. Why Mass Recertification May Miss the Point Against this backdrop, USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins proposed a sweeping recertification initiative requiring all SNAP beneficiaries to reapply for benefits. The proposal generated immediate political attention because it appeared to offer a direct response to concerns about programme integrity. Yet critics argued that mass recertification risks confusing symptoms with causes. SNAP already contains recertification requirements. Beneficiaries periodically update information regarding income, employment status, household composition and residency. States already possess the authority and mechanisms necessary to verify eligibility. The challenge is often not the absence of rules but the inconsistent enforcement of existing ones. Requiring millions of beneficiaries to repeat processes already mandated by law could generate significant administrative burdens without fundamentally addressing the incentive structures that contribute to payment errors in the first place. Even the most rigorous verification system struggles when institutional incentives discourage aggressive oversight. The Republican Reform Agenda Recognising these concerns, Republican lawmakers have increasingly focused on broader structural reforms. Proposals include strengthening interstate data sharing through the National Accuracy Clearinghouse, tightening eligibility verification, reducing tolerance thresholds for payment errors, restricting certain categories of eligibility and requiring greater state financial participation. Supporters argue these measures would improve accountability, reduce improper payments and restore public confidence in the programme. Critics counter that excessive emphasis on error reduction risks creating barriers for genuinely eligible households, particularly vulnerable populations that already face administrative hurdles. Both arguments contain merit. Administrative integrity and programme accessibility are not mutually exclusive goals, but balancing them remains politically difficult. The more fundamental question is whether improved administration alone can resolve problems that originate in programme design. Increasingly, many reform advocates believe it cannot. The Federalism Debate Re-emerges At its core, the SNAP controversy has evolved into a debate about federalism itself. Should food assistance remain a federally financed entitlement administered by states? Or should states assume greater financial responsibility for programmes they operate? Advocates of decentralisation argue that accountability improves when decision-makers directly bear the fiscal consequences of their choices. Under such a model, states would possess stronger incentives to prevent waste, strengthen verification systems and innovate in programme administration. Yet decentralisation introduces its own risks. States vary significantly in fiscal capacity, administrative competence and political priorities. Wealthier states may sustain generous programmes during economic downturns, while poorer states could struggle precisely when assistance is most needed. One of SNAP’s traditional strengths has been its ability to expand automatically during recessions when state budgets are under severe pressure. A fully decentralised system might enhance accountability while weakening uniformity and crisis responsiveness. The tension between these objectives remains unresolved. The Politics of Accountability The SNAP debate also illuminates a recurring reality of public policy. Politicians routinely promise to eliminate waste, fraud and abuse. Yet such promises often underestimate the extent to which institutions adapt to incentives. The Alaska Carveout offers a textbook example. What began as a political compromise designed to facilitate legislative passage ultimately altered behavioural incentives across the system. States responded rationally to the signals embedded within the policy. This phenomenon extends far beyond SNAP. It appears whenever governments separate authority from responsibility, decision-making from accountability, or spending decisions from financial consequences. Successful reform therefore requires more than new regulations or additional paperwork. It requires institutions that align incentives with desired outcomes. A Programme at a Crossroads America’s largest food assistance programme now stands at a crossroads. The status quo continues to provide critical support to millions of households while struggling with persistent accountability concerns. Reform efforts promise greater fiscal discipline but risk introducing new administrative complexities and political controversies. Neither path offers an uncomplicated solution. Maintaining current arrangements risks perpetuating the very incentive failures that undermine public confidence. Yet radical decentralisation could create disparities that weaken the programme’s ability to function as a national safety net. The real challenge is not choosing between compassion and accountability. It is designing a system in which the two reinforce rather than undermine one another. The recent controversies surrounding SNAP suggest that the programme’s difficulties stem less from isolated instances of fraud than from deeper structural contradictions. States administer the programme. Federal taxpayers finance it. And accountability remains suspended somewhere in between. Until policymakers confront that underlying reality, debates over recertification, payment errors and programme integrity are likely to remain trapped in a cycle of temporary fixes and recurring controversies. The future of SNAP may ultimately depend not on how many audits are conducted or how many forms beneficiaries complete, but on whether responsibility and consequences can finally be brought back into alignment. For in public policy, as in economics, incentives are rarely defeated by good intentions. They merely wait to reveal themselves. -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/4115/from-5-million-farmers-to-one-connected-ecosystem.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/4115/from-5-million-farmers-to-one-connected-ecosystem.html Wed, 17 Jun 2026 11:34:32 +0530 Simon Wiebusch explains how Bayer’s FarmRise platform is evolving from a digital advisory tool into a comprehensive agricultural intelligence network As India’s digital agriculture landscape accelerates, Bayer’s FarmRise platform has crossed the milestone of five million registered farmers, raising larger questions about whether agri-tech can move beyond information dissemination to influence real farm-level decision-making. In an exclusive conversation with AgroSpectrum, Simon Wiebusch, Country Divisional Head – Crop Science Division, Bayer for India, Bangladesh & Sri Lanka, argues that the future of agriculture lies in a “phygital” ecosystem where AI-powered advisory, market access, risk protection and agronomic intelligence converge to build farmer resilience at scale. He contends that digital tools are not replacing human extension networks but amplifying their reach, particularly in a country where personalised advisory for millions of smallholders remains a formidable challenge. The discussion also explores the evolution of agricultural insurance through Bayer’s Alivio platform, the growing importance of data stewardship, and the role of AI in delivering hyperlocal recommendations without sacrificing agronomic precision. At its core, the interview examines whether integrated digital ecosystems can emerge as the operating infrastructure of Indian agriculture while balancing commercial scalability with the broader imperative of food-system resilience. 1. FarmRise has now crossed 5 million registered farmers in India, yet agricultural decision-making at the farm level remains deeply heterogeneous. How do you reconcile scale with true behavioral depth—are you influencing agronomic decisions, or primarily improving information access ? Reaching five million registered farmers is an important milestone, but scale alone is not a measure of impact. India is not a single farming system—it is thousands of highly localized systems shaped by soil, climate, cropping patterns, labor availability, and market access. The real challenge is maintaining local relevance at scale. FarmRise was therefore designed not just as an information platform, but as a decision-support ecosystem. Farmers are accessing crop-specific advisory, weather intelligence, mandi prices, government schemes, and sustainability guidance across nine-plus Indian languages. More importantly, we are seeing early signals of behavioral change—over 10 million anti-counterfeit scans, increasing uptake of Direct Seeded Rice advisory via Ask Deena, and stronger engagement with market linkage and risk-protection tools. For us, success is not measured by downloads. It is measured by whether farmers can take more confident decisions, manage risk better, and build resilience over time. 2. Bayer describes FarmRise as part of a “phygital ecosystem” combining advisory, insurance, credit, and market access. At what point does this integrated model shift from being a farmer empowerment platform to becoming a vertically integrated agri-services architecture, and how do you ensure neutrality of advice within it ? Indian agriculture has historically operated through fragmented systems, where advisory, finance, inputs, and markets sit in silos. That fragmentation creates inefficiency, especially for smallholders. Our phygital approach is designed to improve coordination and access—not to centralize control. The model itself is partnership-led. FarmRise One for example supports over 500 FPOs and 200,000+ farmers, connecting them with multiple lenders, input partners, and premium buyers. Across the broader ecosystem, we have 60+ value-chain partnerships reaching millions of farmers. Trust remains the most critical currency. If farmers perceive advice as transactional or biased, adoption will not sustain. That is why our approach is anchored in science-based agronomy, strong stewardship, and recommendations that prioritize long-term farm outcomes over short-term transactions. 3. Despite rapid digitization, trust in agriculture is still largely built through human extension systems. What evidence suggests that AI-driven advisory tools and chatbots are genuinely displacing, rather than simply supplementing, traditional extension networks ? I don’t see agriculture evolving into “digital versus human.” Farming is inherently trust-driven, and trust is built through relationships, consistency, and outcomes over time. What AI is enabling is improved accessibility and responsiveness. Our AI chatbot, launched in 2025, has already handled over 25,000 queries, while Ask Deena has engaged more than 25,000 farmers across key rice-growing regions. These tools provide immediate support in local languages, often beyond the reach of traditional extension. However, large agronomic transitions, whether in Direct Seeded Rice, sustainability practices, or climate resilience, still require field-level engagement. Additionally, given the small average landownership and subsequent high number of farmers in India, AI is probably the only viable option to give personalized advise at scale. So, we see AI as an augmentation layer, not a replacement. It democratizes access to agronomic intelligence, while human expertise remains essential for contextualization and sustained behavioral change. Technology amplifies trust; it doesn’t replace it. 4. FarmRise and associated platforms now span advisory, input verification, risk protection through Alivio, and market linkage via FarmRise One. Is there a risk of over-centralizing the farmer’s ecosystem within a single corporate digital spine, and how do you address concerns around data ownership and consent ? Digital agriculture can only be scaled if it is built on transparency, farmer agency, and responsible data governance. Farmers must clearly understand the value exchange. Our intent is not to centralize agriculture into a single digital spine. Indian agriculture is inherently decentralized, and ecosystem driven. What we are addressing is fragmentation, which limits farmer access to advisory, finance, markets, and risk solutions. This ecosystem is collaboration-led—FarmRise One works with 500+ FPOs and multiple partners, while our broader initiatives span 60+ partnerships. Over time, the differentiator will not be who captures the most data, but who uses data responsibly to create measurable farmer value while maintaining trust. Without that trust, no digital platform can scale meaningfully. 5. The anti-counterfeit scanning feature has recorded over 10 million scans. Beyond engagement metrics, what measurable behavioral or economic outcomes have you observed—particularly in terms of input quality assurance, yield improvement, or farmer income stability ? The 10 million-plus scans signal much more than engagement; they reflect a shift in farmer behaviors toward greater awareness and traceability. Counterfeit or substandard inputs directly impact productivity, crop quality, and farmer incomes. By enabling instant verification, we are strengthening confidence in the input ecosystem. We also see improved engagement around responsible use and stewardship. Importantly, the scan feature acts as an entry point into a broader advisory layer—covering agronomy, weather, and market intelligence. In agriculture, outcomes rarely come from a single intervention. They are the result of cumulative improvements, better inputs, better advisory, stronger risk management, and improved market access. The real opportunity is in connecting these layers to improve decision quality across the crop cycle. 6. With AI-powered advisory and multilingual chatbots scaling rapidly, how do you mitigate the risk of algorithmic bias or oversimplified recommendations in highly localized agronomic contexts where micro-variations in soil and climate are decisive ? Agriculture is inherently local, so oversimplification is a real risk if technology is not grounded in agronomy and local validation. That is why we position AI as a decision-support layer, not an autonomous agronomist. Our systems continuously evolve through localized data, crop intelligence, weather inputs, field interactions, and farmer feedback. Equally important, they remain connected to human expertise on the ground. India is one of the most complex agricultural environments globally. Any scalable digital solution must respect that diversity, not standardize over it. The future lies in combining AI, data science, and field intelligence to deliver more precise, context-aware advisory. 7. Alivio introduces a model where agronomic thresholds trigger instant benefits and input redemption. Does this represent a fundamental redefinition of agricultural insurance—from indemnity-based protection to real-time agronomic risk monetization ? Agriculture is becoming more volatile due to climate variability and changing economics. Farmers need risk-management systems that are faster and more closely aligned with real conditions on the ground. Alivio uses high-resolution satellite data and plot-level intelligence to trigger support when agronomic thresholds are breached. Instead of long settlement cycles, farmers receive timely benefits that can be immediately redeemed for seeds and crop protection inputs. The model is already active in crops like onion and corn and will expand further. What we are seeing is a shift from purely indemnity-based insurance to more integrated resilience models—where the focus is on keeping farmers productive despite shocks. 8. Looking ahead, do you see Bayer’s phygital ecosystem evolving into an operating system for Indian agriculture, and if so, how do you balance commercial scalability with the long-term public-good dimension of food system resilience ? Indian agriculture is undergoing a structural shift—driven by digitization, FPO-led aggregation, climate-smart practices, rural financial inclusion, and productivity-focused innovation. Initiatives around Digital Public Infrastructure and value-chain modernization are accelerating this transition. Going forward, digital and phygital platforms will increasingly act as foundational infrastructure layers—connecting advisory, sustainability, markets, traceability, and risk management. Today, Bayer’s ecosystem already spans over 5 million FarmRise users, 60+ partnerships, 500+ FPOs through FarmRise One, and an additional 370+ through SFAC collaborations. Sustainability platforms like DirectAcres and the Good Rice Alliance are also delivering measurable impact on a scale. Importantly, commercial scalability and food-system resilience are not in tension; they are interdependent. When farmers become more productive, profitable, and climate-resilient, the entire system becomes stronger; agriculture becomes more regenerative. Our role is to bring science-led innovation, digital capability, and ecosystem partnerships to support a more resilient, competitive, and future-ready agricultural sector in India. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/4095/beyond-rice-and-wheat-why-indias-next-agricultural-revolution-may-come-from-forgotten-crops.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/4095/beyond-rice-and-wheat-why-indias-next-agricultural-revolution-may-come-from-forgotten-crops.html Mon, 15 Jun 2026 13:26:40 +0530 With the global plant-based protein market poised for explosive growth, India’s rich genetic diversity could become a strategic economic and geopolitical advantage, says GFI India’s senior scientist In an exclusive interview with AgroSpectrum, Dr. Padma Ishwarya S., Senior Scientist (Plant-based) at the Good Food Institute India, argues that India’s agricultural future must move beyond calorie security toward nutrition security, climate resilience, and biodiversity-led growth. She highlights how the country’s continued dependence on imported pulses and oilseeds reflects deeper structural imbalances in agricultural incentives, research priorities, and market systems. The discussion explores the untapped potential of indigenous and orphan crops such as horse gram, winged bean, bambara groundnut, and amaranth as climate-resilient, protein-rich alternatives capable of powering India’s emerging smart-protein economy. Dr. Ishwarya also emphasizes the transformative role of genomics, AI, and computational biology in accelerating crop improvement and commercialisation, while stressing the need to bridge crop science, food science, and industry requirements. She concludes that with targeted policy support, processing infrastructure, and value-chain investments, India’s rich crop diversity could become a major economic, nutritional, and geopolitical advantage in the rapidly expanding global plant-protein market. India is the world’s largest rice producer, yet remains import-dependent for pulses and oilseeds. Does this expose a deeper imbalance between calorie security and nutritional security in India’s agricultural model ? India's focus on rice and wheat during the Green Revolution era was a need-based intervention that ensured caloric sufficiency and food security. Subsequently, cereals became deeply embedded in India’s agricultural infrastructure, markets, and farmer decision-making. Today, India’s priorities are shifting toward nutrition security, with an emphasis on crop diversification and biofortification as strategies to address longstanding protein and micronutrient deficiencies among the Indian population. There are several reasons for India’s import dependence on pulses and oilseeds. Over the decades, cereals benefited from sustained investments in research and development, productivity enhancement, cropping incentives, assured procurement, and market support mechanisms. In contrast, pulses and oilseeds production has faced greater market volatility and relatively less access to quality seeds, mechanisation, irrigation, and value chain development. As a result, domestic production has not always kept pace with growing demand, contributing to continued import dependence. But diversification toward millets and pulses is steadily increasing in several states, driven by growing recognition of the benefits like resource-use efficiency, soil health, and climate resilience. Recent national missions on pulses, oilseeds, and millets will accelerate this diversification towards crops that are both nutritionally and environmentally beneficial, supporting agricultural R&D and stronger market incentives for farmers. Your whitepaper highlights orphan crops such as horse gram, winged bean, lupin, and bambara groundnut. Why have nutritionally rich indigenous crops remained economically invisible in mainstream agriculture for decades? Many of these crops were traditionally cultivated in rainfed, tribal, hilly, or marginal agroecologies, often by smallholder farmers for household consumption rather than large-scale commercial trade. Gaps  in crop modelling, germplasm characterisation, and value-added product development, could be the reasons for challenges in  wider commercial adoption. Despite their climate resilience, low productivity and yields, alongside strong off-flavours, have hindered their large-scale adoption in mainstream agriculture. This is further constrained by a lack of established supply chains and post-harvest processing units for both primary and advanced food applications. However, the landscape is now changing. Over the past few years, the Government of India is paying significant attention toward millets, pulses, and oilseeds through initiatives linked to the International Year of Millets 2023, the National Mission on Edible Oils-Oilseeds and the six-year Mission for Aatmanirbharta in Pulses. According to GFI India’s latest whitepaper on crop optimisation, addressing the current gaps will require targeted R&D integrating crop physiology, genetics and agronomy with end-use functionality. With efficient processing to extract proteins and other high-value ingredients, these crops could become highly functional and attractive inputs for commercial food processing. As climate volatility intensifies, could orphan crops emerge not merely as nutritional alternatives, but as strategic climate-resilient assets for India’s agricultural future? India’s agricultural systems are increasingly exposed to climate variability, further exacerbated by input-intensive cultivation of cereals like rice that have contributed to soil nutrient depletion and groundwater stress. Diversifying into indigenous and orphan crops offer a comparative advantage as they are naturally adapted to local agro-climatic conditions and perform well under more marginal or variable environments. Indigenous pulses and legumes, for instance, are hardy nitrogen-fixing crops that typically require fewer external inputs such as synthetic fertilisers and intensive irrigation. Both millets and pulses are drought- and heat-tolerant, while their deeper root systems and longer growth periods improve soil biodiversity and structure. However, further agricultural research is needed to identify traits that deliver stable protein and nutrient yield under climate stress, as well as the develop and breed climate-adaptive varieties. Much of the global plant-protein industry still depends on soybean, pea, and wheat. How significant is the opportunity for India to build a differentiated smart-protein ecosystem rooted in indigenous biodiversity? Among the currently available plant-based meat products in India, 30 per cent use soy as their source of protein, 20 per cent use a composite blend of soy and wheat protein, and 15.8 per cent contain pea protein. There is growing interest from industry in expanding this basket, driven by concerns of supply concentration, allergenicity, sustainability and limited product functionality. India is well-positioned to meet this demand with its rich diversity of indigenous crops and to build a more localised, resilient ingredient ecosystem that has otherwise remained heavily import-dependent. Underutilised crops such as amaranth, winged bean, or finger millet boast high-quality, complete protein profiles, while several indigenous crops (e.g. mung bean) can provide functional properties like binding, emulsification and gelling, which are critical to achieving the desired taste and texture in plant-based alternatives without the need for additives. With targeted crop optimisation, processing innovation, batch-to-batch consistency and an in-depth understanding of functionality, these crops could expand the range of locally sourced smart protein ingredients that are both highly nutritious and functionally robust. India possesses one of the world’s richest repositories of plant genetic diversity through institutions like ICAR-NBPGR. Is the bigger challenge today scientific discovery, policy prioritisation, or commercialisation? India’s strengths lie in plant genetic resources, crop science, and public agricultural research. Significant progress has been made in policy support for agricultural innovation. The challenge lies in translating scientific advances into commercially relevant outcomes at scale. While crop improvement research and food product development have seen simultaneous progress, these are rarely integrated. Crop scientists may focus on yield, disease resistance, and agronomic performance, while food scientists and industry stakeholders prioritise traits such as protein content, functionality, flavour, processing characteristics, and end-use applications. There is a need and opportunity to connect crop science, food science, and industry needs. When breeding objectives, processing requirements, and market applications are aligned, innovations can be translated from lab to market much faster. The whitepaper calls for AI and machine learning to accelerate crop trait discovery. How transformative could computational biology and genomics become in unlocking the commercial viability of orphan crops? Computational biology and genomics could be game-changers for orphan crops. These technologies help scientists identify desirable traits such as higher yield, better nutrition, climate resilience, and improved processing qualities much faster than traditional breeding methods. This can significantly shorten the time needed to develop commercially viable varieties. Genomics can accelerate commercialisation through faster breeding and domestication, improving processor-relevant traits, and unlocking hidden genetic diversity. Computational biology  tools can compensate for the relatively small datasets available for orphan crops by transferring insights from major crops and identifying promising breeding targets more efficiently. With these approaches, the smart protein sector can move from trial-and-error innovation to faster, data-driven crop and product  development. Crop diversification often fails due to weak processing and supply-chain infrastructure. Can orphan crops realistically scale without parallel investment in ingredient manufacturing and food-processing ecosystems? Market access and limited commercial linkages remain key constraints for wider diversification into orphan and indigenous crops. Addressing these constraints will require stronger investment in agricultural R&D focused on end-product functionality; closer collaboration between academia and industry to align crop traits with market requirements and set up; and greater support for downstream food processing—including pilot-scale validation. Together, these interventions can ensure orphan crops are converted into commercially viable ingredients for plant-based smart proteins and other value-added food products. To establish scalable and localised supply chains for processing and ingredient manufacturing, NIFTEM-T and GFI India’s report also notes the need for further funding and policy support  for domestic, low-cost production of specialised smart protein manufacturing equipment. As sustainability and food-security concerns reshape global protein markets, could India’s indigenous crop diversity become a long-term geopolitical and economic advantage? Systematically integrating orphan crops into food processing, public nutrition programmes, climate-resilient agriculture missions, and export-oriented value chains could significantly add to the country’s economy over the next 5–7 years. Just as millet-based food products and procurement values have already increased sharply following policy support and market development initiatives, other indigenous crops can follow a similar trajectory. India has a strong comparative advantage globally in climate-resilient nutri-cereals and speciality protein crops. Value-added processing (protein isolates and concentrates, plant-based meat, egg and dairy products, ready-to-cook foods, functional foods) creates significantly higher economic returns than raw grain sales alone. The economic gains could come from higher farmer incomes, reduced nutrition and climate-related economic burdens, growth of India’s plant-protein and smart protein sectors and export. With the global plant-based meat market growing anywhere from $ 88 billion to $ 368 billion by 2035, there is immense potential for India to become a major exporter of plant protein ingredients and smart protein end-products. For decades, agricultural policy has prioritised yield maximisation around a narrow basket of staples. Does India now need a fundamentally new policy framework that values biodiversity, nutritional density, and resilience as much as production volumes? Government support is already playing a catalytic role with its existing national priorities for  indigenous crops like pulses, millets, and oilseeds, alongside investment into the food processing infrastructure. GFI India’s whitepaper recommends the establishment of a ‘smart crops for smart proteins’ initiative, including academia-industry-policy linkages to align agricultural R&D with market requirements to leverage these crops to their fullest potential. With continued research and investment, India can deliver affordable nutrition domestically through delicious alternatives and familiar formats alike, while becoming a competitive global supplier of plant-based protein ingredients, equipment and end products. -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrummindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/4088/can-solar-irrigation-scale-without-accelerating-water-stress.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/4088/can-solar-irrigation-scale-without-accelerating-water-stress.html Fri, 12 Jun 2026 14:06:33 +0530 From the promise of energy independence to the risks of aquifer depletion, Oswal Pumps Director Amulya Gupta explains why India’s solar irrigation success will ultimately depend on integrating renewable energy expansion with groundwater governance, crop diversification, and climate-resilient agricultural policies In an exclusive interview with AgroSpectrum, Amulya Gupta, Director at Oswal Pumps, argues that India’s solar irrigation revolution is reshaping the economics of farming but could also intensify groundwater stress if not backed by stronger water governance. He highlights how solar-powered irrigation can become a powerful climate-resilience tool while warning that unchecked expansion in water-stressed regions may deepen ecological imbalances. Gupta advocates for a shift from pump installation targets to integrated policies that combine solarisation, groundwater monitoring, crop diversification, and energy-market incentives. As India accelerates its renewable energy ambitions, he contends that the future of sustainable agriculture will depend on aligning farmer incomes, clean energy growth, and aquifer health within a single policy framework. India’s solar irrigation push is often celebrated as a climate and energy success story, but critics argue it may unintentionally incentivise excessive groundwater extraction. How do you assess this “groundwater paradox,” and is current policy architecture adequately prepared for it? India’s solar irrigation journey sits at the intersection of two critical priorities: energy transition and agricultural resilience. Over the last few years, we’ve seen strong momentum under schemes like PM-KUSUM, with solar pumps increasingly replacing diesel and unreliable grid supply. The “groundwater paradox” is a valid concern, but it is not a new problem created by solar; rather, solar changes the economics of an existing one. When energy becomes abundant and near-zero marginal cost, the incentive to pump more water naturally increases. That said, current policy architecture is evolving in the right direction but remains incomplete. While there is strong support for deployment, the regulatory ecosystem around groundwater extraction, such as aquifer-level monitoring, usage caps, and pricing signals,  has not scaled at the same pace. The next phase of policy must move beyond installation targets and integrate water governance frameworks to ensure that solar irrigation remains sustainable in the long term. Historically, subsidised electricity for agriculture contributed to unsustainable groundwater use in several states. In what ways does solar-powered irrigation fundamentally differ from earlier power subsidy regimes, and where do the risks remain structurally similar? Historically, subsidised or free electricity led to inefficient water use because farmers were insulated from the true cost of extraction. However, supply was still constrained as limited hours of power meant pumping was restricted in practice. Solar fundamentally changes this dynamic. It provides reliable, daytime energy, improving productivity and reducing dependence on diesel. This is a significant structural improvement for farmer income and energy sustainability. However, the similarity lies in the pricing signal, or lack of it. In both systems, when the marginal cost of energy approaches zero, the incentive to conserve water weakens. The key difference is that solar creates an opportunity to redesign incentives, particularly through grid-connected systems, something that was not feasible in earlier regimes. Many experts argue that the real challenge is not solarisation itself, but the absence of strong groundwater governance mechanisms. Can India realistically scale decentralised solar irrigation without parallel reforms in water pricing, aquifer monitoring, and crop incentives? The challenge is not whether solar irrigation can scale, it already is, but whether it can scale sustainably. India extracts nearly 25 per cent of the world’s groundwater making it the largest user globally. Without robust groundwater governance, solar irrigation risks accelerating an already critical situation. Large parts of northwestern and peninsular India are classified as over-exploited or critical in terms of groundwater levels. What is needed is not a slowdown in solar adoption, but a parallel strengthening of governance frameworks. This includes digitised aquifer mapping, real-time monitoring systems, and policy instruments that align water use with local ecological conditions. Without these, outcomes will remain highly uneven across regions. There is increasing discussion around feeder-level solarisation and grid-connected pump models that allow farmers to sell excess electricity back to utilities. Do you believe these models can create economic incentives for water conservation, or are the behavioural outcomes still uncertain? One of the most promising shifts in recent policy thinking is the move toward feeder-level solarisation and grid-connected pump models. Under Component C of PM-KUSUM, farmers can feed surplus solar power back into the grid, creating an additional revenue stream. This model has the potential to fundamentally change farmer behaviour. When electricity has a market value, the incentive shifts from maximising water extraction to optimising energy use. Early pilots in states like Gujarat have demonstrated that farmers are willing to sell excess power when tariffs are attractive and payments are reliable. However, behavioural outcomes are still evolving. The success of this model depends heavily on DISCOM financial health, tariff structures, and trust in timely payments. While the intent is aligned with sustainability, execution will determine long-term impact. States like Punjab, Haryana, and parts of Maharashtra already face severe aquifer depletion driven by water-intensive cropping patterns. Could rapid solar irrigation deployment deepen regional ecological imbalances unless linked to crop diversification strategies? Groundwater stress in states like Punjab, Haryana, and Maharashtra is closely tied to cropping patterns. For instance, paddy cultivation in Punjab consumes nearly 4,000–5,000 litres of water per kilogram of rice. In such regions, solar irrigation, if deployed in isolation, can exacerbate depletion by removing energy constraints on pumping. This is particularly concerning in over-exploited aquifers where recharge rates are already low. To avoid deepening these imbalances, solar deployment must be aligned with crop diversification strategies. Unless farmers are incentivised to shift toward less water-intensive crops, the underlying drivers of groundwater depletion will remain unchanged, regardless of the energy source. From a policy standpoint, how should India balance three competing priorities, farmer income security, renewable energy expansion, and long-term groundwater sustainability, especially when short-term political incentives often favour higher water extraction? India’s policy challenge lies in balancing three equally important priorities: farmer income security, renewable energy expansion, and groundwater sustainability. Each of these has strong economic and political drivers, and often, short-term incentives favour higher agricultural output and water use. However, there is a growing recognition that these goals do not have to be mutually exclusive. Integrated models, where farmers earn from both agriculture and energy generation, can create more sustainable income streams. For example, decentralised solarisation combined with assured buy-back mechanisms can provide predictable revenue while reducing pressure on groundwater. The focus should shift from isolated interventions to system-level design, where incentives across sectors are aligned rather than conflicting. Climate change is expected to increase rainfall variability and agricultural stress across India. In that context, could solar irrigation become indispensable for climate resilience even if it creates additional groundwater pressures, and how should policymakers navigate that trade-off? Climate change is intensifying the need for reliable irrigation. India has seen increasing rainfall variability, with more frequent droughts and extreme weather events affecting agricultural output. In this context, solar irrigation becomes a critical resilience tool. It ensures that farmers have access to energy for irrigation even when grid supply is unreliable or diesel costs are prohibitive. At the same time, increased reliance on groundwater cannot be ignored. The policy approach must therefore focus on managing this trade-off, leveraging solar for resilience while strengthening safeguards against over-extraction. Delaying solar adoption is not a viable option; managing its externalities is. Looking ahead, what would a genuinely sustainable solar irrigation ecosystem require beyond panel deployment, in terms of regulation, data systems, water accounting, financing models, and institutional coordination? The next phase of India’s solar irrigation journey must move beyond deployment metrics. While installation numbers are important, they do not capture sustainability outcomes. A genuinely sustainable ecosystem will require stronger integration between energy and water policy, supported by digital infrastructure and institutional coordination. This includes better groundwater data systems, clearer regulatory frameworks, and financing models that encourage efficient water use alongside solar adoption. There is also a need to rethink success metrics, from counting pumps installed to measuring improvements in water-use efficiency, farmer income diversification, and aquifer health. -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/4071/nutrient-efficiency-technologies-can-directly-reduce-agricultures-environmental-footprint.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/4071/nutrient-efficiency-technologies-can-directly-reduce-agricultures-environmental-footprint.html Wed, 10 Jun 2026 13:25:39 +0530 Exclusive interview with Borregaard's Sondre Lomeland on reducing fertilizer losses, improving uptake, and advancing sustainable farming In an exclusive interaction with AgroSpectrum, Sondre Lomeland, Product Manager, Plant Nutrition at Borregaard, discusses the launch of Activance NUE, a next-generation biostimulant ingredient designed to improve nitrogen and phosphorus use efficiency while helping growers maximise returns from fertilizer investments. He explains how the CE-marked technology combines multiple modes of action to enhance nutrient uptake, reduce leaching losses, and deliver measurable gains in root development, crop performance, and environmental sustainability. Lomeland also highlights the growing role of proven, fertilizer-compatible biostimulants in helping agriculture transition from input-intensive practices to efficiency-driven crop nutrition strategies. Looking ahead, he shares Borregaard’s broader vision for sustainable agriculture and previews future innovations that could further redefine nutrient management and organic farming systems. Activance NUE enters the market at a time when nutrient-use efficiency is becoming a central focus for agriculture. What specific industry challenges were you aiming to address through the development of this biostimulant ingredient? First, being certified under the EU Fertilising Products Regulations, customers can confidently buy a product that is safe to use and supported by documented agronomic efficiency. Historically, it has been difficult for farmers and fertilizer manufacturers to distinguish between biostimulants that consistently deliver measurable field performance and those that rely primarily on marketing claims. The biostimulant sector has expanded rapidly, but the lack of harmonized standards and independent validation has often created uncertainty around product efficacy. By obtaining certification under the EU regulatory framework, Activance NUE provides assurance that its nutrient-use efficiency benefits have been demonstrated through rigorous testing and verified according to recognized standards. This gives growers greater confidence that the product will perform under real-life field conditions and helps manufacturers bring a proven solution to market without undertaking extensive validation work themselves. Second, Activance NUE was developed with a strong focus on compatibility with common fertilizers and existing application systems. Many biostimulants face challenges when mixed with fertilizers, often causing tank sedimentation, precipitation, filter blockages, or nozzle clogging. These issues can create operational inefficiencies and discourage adoption, particularly in large-scale farming systems where ease of application is critical. Activance NUE has been formulated to work seamlessly with widely used fertilizer products, enabling growers to integrate nutrient-use efficiency benefits directly into their current crop nutrition programs. This compatibility allows farmers to apply fertilizers and biostimulants together without disrupting existing practices, making adoption simpler and more practical. Ultimately, the goal was to develop a solution that combines proven agronomic performance, regulatory credibility, and operational simplicity, addressing some of the key barriers that have limited wider adoption of biostimulant technologies in agriculture. The product is certified under the EU Fertilising Products Regulation as a PFC 6(B) non-microbial plant biostimulant. How significant is this CE-marking from a commercial and regulatory perspective for fertilizer manufacturers operating in Europe? Europe is a heavily regulated market for biostimulants. In order to receive the CE-marking, we have conducted a lot of field trials and got verified nutrient use efficiency from an external party. Now we can sell Activance NUE as a B2B product to manufacturers of specialty fertilizers, and they can include the nutrient use efficiency on their label, without needing to conduct time-consuming and expensive field trials on their own. Activance NUE claims to improve both nitrogen and phosphorus use efficiency. Can you explain how its three modes of action work together to enhance nutrient uptake while reducing nutrient losses? Activance NUE has been shown to improve nutrient-use efficiency through three complementary modes of action that work together at both the plant and soil level. The first mode of action is the stimulation of plasma membrane H+-ATPase activity. This enzyme plays a central role in plant physiology and is often referred to as the engine that drives nutrient uptake. Increased H+-ATPase activity promotes stronger root growth and development, improving the plant's ability to explore a larger volume of soil and access available nutrients. It also enhances the transport of mineral nutrients across root cell membranes and supports the plant's ability to adapt to abiotic stresses such as drought, temperature fluctuations, and nutrient limitations. By strengthening these fundamental physiological processes, the plant becomes more efficient at acquiring nutrients from its environment. The second mode of action involves improving the plant's ability to absorb and utilize nitrogen. In corn trials with Activance NUE, we observed stimulation of both nitrate reductase activity and nitrate transporters. Nitrate transporters facilitate the movement of nitrate from the soil into the plant, while nitrate reductase is a key enzyme involved in converting absorbed nitrate into forms that can be used for growth and development. By supporting both uptake and assimilation pathways, Activance NUE helps plants make better use of available nitrogen, increasing nutrient efficiency rather than simply increasing nutrient supply. This is particularly important as nitrogen is often one of the most expensive and environmentally sensitive inputs in modern agriculture. The third mode of action occurs in the soil, where Activance NUE improves the availability and retention of phosphorus and nitrogen through its complexing capacity with phosphates and nitrates. In many soils, phosphorus can become fixed and unavailable to plants, while nitrogen is susceptible to leaching beyond the root zone. Activance NUE helps reduce these losses by keeping nutrients in more plant-available forms for longer periods. This not only improves nutrient accessibility for crops but also contributes to reducing nutrient losses to the surrounding environment. Together, these three mechanisms create a synergistic effect. The plant develops a stronger root system capable of accessing more nutrients, its internal processes become more efficient at absorbing and utilizing those nutrients, and the nutrients themselves remain more available in the soil. The result is improved nitrogen and phosphorus use efficiency, enabling plants to make more effective use of applied fertilizers while supporting both productivity and sustainability objectives. Field trials showed improvements in root growth, nitrate uptake, and crop yields across multiple crop categories. Which results surprised you the most during the development and validation process? One of the most surprising results came from a broccoli field trial that was originally designed to measure nitrogen-use efficiency rather than environmental outcomes. During the trial, irrigation and fertilizer injection events created conditions where nitrates could be washed away from the topsoil and move beyond the root zone. Since the contract research organization (CRO) was already monitoring nitrate concentrations in the leachate as part of the study, we had a valuable opportunity to directly observe how the product influenced nutrient losses under real field conditions. What stood out was that the plots treated with Activance NUE consistently showed lower nitrate leaching compared to the untreated control plots. While we expected to see improvements in nutrient uptake and crop performance based on the product's mode of action, the magnitude and consistency of the reduction in nitrate losses were particularly encouraging. It provided direct evidence that the product was not only helping plants utilize nutrients more effectively but was also keeping more nitrogen available within the root zone where it could be used by the crop. This finding is significant because nitrate leaching represents both an economic and environmental challenge. From a grower's perspective, nutrients lost through leaching are nutrients that have been paid for but never utilized by the crop. From an environmental perspective, nitrate movement into groundwater and surrounding ecosystems is an increasing concern for regulators and the agricultural industry alike. Seeing a measurable reduction in leaching reinforced our understanding that improving nutrient-use efficiency is not only about increasing yields but also about reducing nutrient losses. Beyond the broccoli trial, we were pleased to see consistent improvements in root growth, nutrient uptake, and yield performance across multiple crop categories. However, the nitrate-leaching results were particularly memorable because they highlighted an additional sustainability benefit that complemented the agronomic gains. It demonstrated that technologies designed to improve nutrient efficiency can deliver value on multiple levels—supporting crop productivity, improving fertilizer return on investment, and reducing the environmental footprint of agricultural production. With fertilizer prices remaining volatile and growers under increasing pressure to maximise input efficiency, how do you see nutrient-use efficiency technologies reshaping fertilizer strategies over the next decade? I believe volatile prices and uncertain supply of fertilizers are changing the fertilizer programs across the world. Instead of adding fertilizers to reach a maximum yield, the dosage is targeted for the maximum return of investment. Biostimulants are key ingredients in this strategy, where they can maintain high crop yields while reducing the amount of fertilizer applied to the fields. Many fertilizer manufacturers are now looking beyond traditional nutrient formulations toward biological and biostimulant-enhanced products. How do you see the role of ingredients like Activance NUE evolving within the broader crop nutrition market? Activance NUE is specifically designed as a B2B ingredient for fertilizer manufacturers, and we see its role becoming increasingly important as the crop nutrition market continues to evolve toward higher-value, performance-driven solutions. Fertilizer manufacturers are investing more heavily in specialty fertilizers and biostimulant-enhanced products as growers demand solutions that deliver measurable agronomic benefits, improve nutrient-use efficiency, and help address sustainability goals. A key trend we are observing is that manufacturers are becoming more selective about the technologies they incorporate into their products. They are looking for ingredients that not only offer proven agronomic performance but are also supported by robust scientific validation and regulatory compliance. Activance NUE addresses this need by providing documented nutrient-use efficiency benefits and certification under the EU Fertilising Products Regulation, giving manufacturers greater confidence when bringing new products to market. Another important factor is formulation compatibility. Many biostimulants show promising results in trials but can be difficult to incorporate into commercial fertilizer formulations because they are incompatible with high-salt environments, low pH formulations, or commonly used fertilizer ingredients. This often creates challenges related to product stability, storage, handling, and application. Activance NUE was specifically developed to overcome these barriers. Its compatibility with a wide range of fertilizer systems allows manufacturers to integrate the technology into existing product portfolios without extensive reformulation work. From a commercial perspective, this compatibility significantly shortens time-to-market. Fertilizer companies can incorporate Activance NUE into liquid fertilizers, water-soluble fertilizers, fertigation products, and other specialty nutrition solutions more efficiently, reducing development timelines and accelerating product launches. This is particularly valuable in a market where innovation cycles are becoming shorter and customer expectations are increasing. Looking ahead, I believe ingredients like Activance NUE will play an increasingly strategic role within the broader crop nutrition industry. Rather than being viewed as optional additives, biostimulant ingredients with proven efficacy will become core components of next-generation fertilizer products designed to maximize nutrient efficiency, improve crop performance, and reduce environmental impact. As the industry shifts toward more sustainable and resource-efficient agriculture, manufacturers will increasingly seek technologies that combine scientific credibility, regulatory acceptance, formulation flexibility, and measurable field performance—and that is precisely the role Activance NUE is designed to fulfill. The product has been developed for compatibility across liquid NPKs, fertigation systems, hydroponics, and water-soluble fertilizers. How important was formulation flexibility in the design process, and what feedback have you received from potential industry partners? The formulation flexibility is one of the key advantages of Activance NUE in the biostimulant market. The feedback from industry partners has been very positive. In broadacre systems, growers value that it can be mixed directly into liquid starter fertilizers such as 10-34-0 and applied in standard field operations. In horticulture, it is appreciated that it can be used in fertigation systems, for example together with WSF, without causing clogging issues. The compatibility makes it easier for formulators and growers to adopt the technology in current practices. Agriculture is increasingly expected to balance productivity with environmental stewardship. To what extent can improved nutrient-use efficiency contribute to reducing nutrient runoff, greenhouse gas emissions, and overall environmental impact? Fertilizer use is a significant contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions, both through the energy-intensive manufacturing process and through emissions generated after fertilizers are applied in the field. Today, less than half of the nitrogen fertilizer applied to agricultural land is actually utilized by the crop. The remainder is often lost through leaching, runoff, volatilization, or conversion into nitrous oxide—a greenhouse gas that has a substantially higher global warming potential than carbon dioxide. Technologies that improve nutrient-use efficiency directly address this challenge by helping plants utilize a greater proportion of the nutrients that are applied. When crops can absorb and use nitrogen and phosphorus more effectively, growers can maintain productivity while reducing fertilizer application rates. This not only lowers input costs but also reduces the environmental footprint associated with fertilizer production, transportation, and field application. Improved nutrient-use efficiency can also play an important role in reducing nutrient runoff and leaching into surrounding ecosystems. Excess nitrogen and phosphorus can contribute to water quality issues, including eutrophication of rivers, lakes, and coastal waters. By increasing nutrient availability to the plant and minimizing nutrient losses from the soil, efficiency-enhancing technologies help keep more nutrients within the crop production system and out of the environment. Beyond nutrient losses, there is also a broader sustainability benefit. Agriculture is under increasing pressure to produce more food from limited resources while meeting climate and environmental targets. Nutrient-use efficiency technologies provide a practical pathway to achieve both objectives simultaneously—supporting high yields and crop quality while lowering resource consumption and environmental impact. As regulatory frameworks become more focused on sustainability and as food value chains place greater emphasis on climate-smart production, technologies that improve nutrient-use efficiency will become increasingly important. In that context, solutions that enable growers to achieve more output from every unit of fertilizer applied can make a meaningful contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, improving water quality, and enhancing the overall sustainability of modern agriculture. Looking ahead, what is Borregaard’s broader vision for biostimulants and sustainable crop nutrition? Are there additional innovations in the pipeline that could further transform how nutrients are managed in modern agriculture? Borregaard’s vision is to contribute to a shift from input-driven to efficiency-driven agriculture. We already support this through a broad portfolio of crop nutrition solutions, including complexing agents, organomineral fertilizers, and soil conditioners. In the innovation pipeline we do have a new biostimulant that could change the way organic farming is managed. The product launch will likely happen towards the start of 2027. -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/4059/protein-fault-line-asias-meat-economy-defies-lab-grown-hype.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/4059/protein-fault-line-asias-meat-economy-defies-lab-grown-hype.html Tue, 09 Jun 2026 14:22:27 +0530 Authored by Agrospectrum Asia Chief Operating Officer, Ankit Kankar, the new white paper examines why conventional livestock systems remain central to Asia’s food future despite advances in cultivated meat and alternative protein A new white paper is challenging prevailing assumptions about the future of protein consumption in Asia, arguing that the region’s food system will continue to be shaped primarily by conventional livestock production even as cultivated meat and alternative proteins gain regulatory and investor attention. Titled “The Protein Fault Line: Cultivated Meat and the Asian Plate,” the report presents a data-driven examination of the forces shaping Asia’s protein economy and questions whether recent breakthroughs in cultivated meat can realistically match the scale, affordability, and livelihood impact of conventional animal agriculture across the region. The analysis comes as Singapore continues to establish itself as a global leader in cultivated meat regulation, approving multiple novel protein products and creating one of the world’s most advanced regulatory environments for cell-cultivated foods. However, the report argues that Singapore’s experience should not be mistaken for a preview of broader Asian consumption patterns. According to the white paper, more than 55 percent of global meat production growth through 2034 is expected to occur in Asia, driven by rising incomes, urbanization, and increasing demand for animal protein. The region is also projected to add approximately 15 million tonnes of poultry production, while nearly 1.3 billion people remain connected to livestock value chains that support rural livelihoods and food security. The report further highlights that approximately 475 million of the world’s 570 million farms are smallholdings, the majority of them located in Asia, underscoring the economic and political significance of traditional livestock systems. At the same time, global investment in alternative proteins fell below $1 billion in 2025, marking the sector’s first sub-billion-dollar funding year since 2018 and raising fresh questions about commercialization timelines and scalability. Rather than positioning alternative proteins and conventional agriculture as competing systems, the white paper explores how emerging technologies may integrate into existing food supply chains. Among the key findings, the report examines: Why Singapore represents a unique regulatory and food-security environment rather than a model easily replicated across Asia; The political economy of protein production and the central role of rural livelihoods; The economic and infrastructure challenges facing large-scale cultivated meat production; The growing potential of precision fermentation as a supply-chain innovation; How alternative proteins may gain traction through ingredients, feed applications, and specialized market segments rather than direct replacement of conventional meat; Four distinct protein pathways likely to shape Asia’s food landscape over the coming decade. The paper concludes that while cultivated meat, plant-based proteins, and fermentation technologies will continue to evolve, Asia’s expanding protein demand is likely to be met primarily through conventional livestock systems in the near term, with alternative proteins finding their strongest opportunities as complementary technologies rather than direct substitutes. The report offers insights for agribusiness leaders, investors, policymakers, food manufacturers, sustainability professionals, and stakeholders seeking to understand the future trajectory of Asia’s food and protein economy. The white paper is now available for download at: https://www.agrospectrumasia.com/whitepaper-cultivatedmeat ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/4058/can-india-break-its-urea-habit-arya-ag-warns-of-deeper-fertiliser-vulnerabilities-ahead.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/4058/can-india-break-its-urea-habit-arya-ag-warns-of-deeper-fertiliser-vulnerabilities-ahead.html Tue, 09 Jun 2026 13:10:51 +0530 Arya.ag’s Anand Chandra outlines why nutrient efficiency, diversified sourcing and precision agriculture will define India’s fertiliser resilience in an increasingly volatile world As concerns mount over potential disruptions in global fertiliser supply chains amid escalating geopolitical tensions, Anand Chandra, Co-founder & Executive Director of Arya.ag, argues that India’s fertiliser security challenge extends far beyond import dependence. In an exclusive interview with Agrospectrum, he highlights how vulnerabilities in natural gas-linked urea production, imbalanced nutrient consumption, and supply-chain bottlenecks could emerge as critical pressure points during periods of global uncertainty. Chandra emphasises the need to shift the conversation from mere input availability to nutrient-use efficiency, advocating greater adoption of precision agriculture, soil testing, digital advisory systems, biofertilisers, and alternative nutrient solutions. He also underscores the importance of strengthening fertiliser resilience through diversified sourcing, smarter logistics, stronger extension systems, and farmer-centric policy reforms. According to him, the long-term solution lies in building a more balanced and sustainable nutrient ecosystem that safeguards both productivity and agricultural resilience. In the event of a sustained disruption in West Asian supply chains, how structurally vulnerable is India’s urea ecosystem, given its dependence on imported natural gas and fertilizer intermediates, and where do you see the first points of systemic stress emerging: availability, pricing, or allocation? India’s urea ecosystem has become more resilient over the years, but it is not insulated from global shocks. The vulnerability is two-fold: India imports a part of its urea requirement, and domestic urea production itself depends heavily on natural gas. A Parliamentary Committee recently noted that natural gas accounts for nearly 90 per cent of the cost of urea production and that a significant share of the gas requirement is import-linked. In such a scenario, the stress may not be visible as an immediate retail price shock because urea prices for farmers are administered. The pressure would first show up in procurement costs, subsidy burden, working capital cycles for companies, shipping timelines, and allocation across states. If the disruption continues into peak sowing windows, availability at the retail point and localised allocation pressure could become the bigger concern. The real challenge, therefore, is not only national-level stock availability, but how quickly supply can be moved to the right geography, at the right time, and in the right quantity and that too at the right price. India has repeatedly expanded domestic urea capacity, yet import dependence persists. To what extent is this a feedstock constraint versus a legacy policy architecture that continues to incentivise urea over balanced fertilisation? I feel it is both. On the supply side, India has added meaningful urea capacity. Six new urea plants have been commissioned in recent years, adding 76.2 LMT of capacity, and domestic urea production crossed 314 LMT in 2023–24. (Press Information Bureau) But capacity expansion alone cannot fully solve dependence when the core feedstock, which is natural gas, is itself exposed to global prices and geopolitical risks. On the demand side, the policy architecture has historically made urea the most familiar and affordable fertilizer for farmers. This has helped food security, but it has also created an imbalance in nutrient use. Farmers respond to price, risk, crop habit and field-level experience. When urea remains the most accessible nutrient, balanced fertilisation becomes harder to achieve at scale. The long-term answer has to combine feedstock security with a gradual correction in nutrient incentives, better soil testing, farmer advisory, and confidence-building around alternatives. A silver lining in this problem could be a compelled movement towards nutrient based fertilizers as a substitute to Urea. If global urea availability tightens sharply, do you believe India’s fertilizer subsidy framework is sufficiently agile to prevent price distortions and black-market leakage, or would rationing and administrative allocation inevitably return? India has a strong administrative system for fertiliser planning. Requirements are assessed before each cropping season in consultation with states, and monthly supply plans are issued and monitored by the Department of Fertilisers. This gives the system a degree of preparedness. However, subsidy agility does not always mean that physical stock is available. A subsidy can absorb price shocks for the farmer, but it cannot immediately create supply if global cargoes are delayed or diverted. In a sharp and prolonged disruption, the pressure would likely be felt first in tighter allocation, closer monitoring of stock movement, and more active coordination between the Centre, states, companies and retailers. Rather than assuming a return to rationing or leakage, the focus should be on preparedness. Stronger real-time visibility into stock, clear communication about expected arrivals, and timely movement into high-demand districts can help protect farmers' confidence during peak sowing windows. The subsidy framework can cushion prices, but supply-chain responsiveness will determine how smoothly the system holds up. Given the geopolitical concentration of fertiliser supply chains in West Asia and a few other geographies, should India treat urea as a strategic commodity akin to crude oil, requiring sovereign procurement buffers or strategic reserves? Urea is a critical agricultural input, and any discussion of its security must be viewed in the context of food security, farmer confidence, and seasonal preparedness. However, it may not be appropriate to compare it directly with crude oil, as the demand cycles, storage dynamics, subsidy structures, and distribution systems differ significantly.For India, the priority should be to build resilience across the fertiliser value chain. This includes diversified sourcing, long-term supply arrangements, stronger domestic production, feedstock security, adequate pre-season planning, and better visibility of district-level demand and stock movement. Strategic reserves or procurement buffers can be one part of the policy discussion, but they should be designed around India's crop cycles and regional demand patterns rather than as a direct replica of the crude oil model. The larger objective should be to ensure that farmers have timely access to essential nutrients during sowing windows, without creating uncertainty at the farm level.Fertiliser security, therefore, needs to be treated as an important part of agricultural resilience. The approach has to be practical, calibrated, and closely aligned with farmers' needs. How realistic is a large-scale behavioural shift among Indian farmers towards alternative nutrients — such as nano-urea, biofertilizers, or custom blends — during a period of acute urea scarcity, given entrenched usage patterns and risk aversion at the farm level? A large-scale behavioural shift in fertiliser use is usually gradual by choice or compelled by circumstances, particularly in crops where nutrient practices are well established. Farmers make input decisions with yield security in mind, so any transition to alternative nutrients has to be supported by clear evidence, local demonstrations, and practical guidance, which would make adoption difficult but not impossible Alternatives such as nano-urea, biofertilizers, organic inputs, and customised blends have an important role in improving nutrient efficiency. However, they are most effective when positioned as part of a balanced nutrient management approach rather than as simple one-to-one replacements. Adoption will depend on local availability, crop-specific recommendations, soil conditions, and confidence built through trusted advisory channels. The shift should therefore be built steadily through soil testing, FPO-led demonstrations, agri-retailer training, and extension support. Farmers are more likely to adopt new nutrient solutions when they see consistent results in similar crop, soil, and irrigation conditions. The larger opportunity is to move from input intensity to input efficiency. Farmers will adopt alternatives when they are confident that productivity, timing, and risk are well managed. If urea prices spike globally, what is the likely second-order impact on cropping patterns in India — particularly rice and wheat — and could this inadvertently accelerate crop diversification more effectively than policy interventions have managed so far? Global urea price movements may not directly translate into a proportional impact on farmers because India has a strong subsidy and supply-management framework for fertilisers. For farmers, the more relevant factors are timely availability, local access, crop economics, and confidence in the season. Rice and wheat are established cropping systems in many parts of India, supported by irrigation, procurement, familiarity with inputs, and market linkages. Therefore, any change in cropping patterns is unlikely to happen only because of a movement in one input price. Farmers usually make crop choices based on a wider set of considerations, including assured markets, expected returns, water availability, labour, credit, and local agronomic conditions. Crop diversification remains important for long-term agricultural resilience, but it must be enabled by market assurance, storage, processing capacity, procurement confidence, and farmer-level advisory services. Pulses, oilseeds, millets, and other less input-intensive crops can gain traction where the economics are reliable and the ecosystem supports the farmer beyond production.So, while input price volatility can influence farmer decision-making at the margin, it is unlikely to be a durable driver of diversification by itself. A sustained shift will come from making alternative crops commercially attractive, operationally viable, and less risky for farmers. To what extent can precision agriculture, soil testing, and digital advisory systems meaningfully reduce urea intensity per hectare in India, or are these gains marginal without deep structural reform in input pricing and extension systems? Precision agriculture, soil testing, and digital advisory can meaningfully reduce excess urea use, but only when they are connected to farmer decision-making at the right time. A soil health card or advisory message has limited value if the farmer cannot access the recommended nutrients, does not trust the recommendation, or finds urea cheaper and easier to use. The biggest gains will come when digital advisory is local, crop-specific, and linked with input availability, FPO-level aggregation, extension support, and market incentives. Technology can tell a farmer how much nutrient is needed, when to apply it, and where the crop is stressed. But behaviour changes when the advice is backed by field demonstrations and economic benefit.So, these tools are important, but they cannot work in isolation. They need pricing reform, stronger extension systems, and trusted local institutions. Looking ahead, does India’s fertiliser security challenge require a complete rethinking of its nitrogen economy — potentially shifting from import-dependent urea molecules to decentralised, locally produced nutrient systems anchored in circular bioeconomy models? India's fertiliser security challenge calls for a broader and more balanced approach to nutrient management. Urea will continue to remain an important input for Indian agriculture, especially for major crops where farmers have established practices. The priority should be to improve nutrient efficiency and reduce excessive dependence on any single input over time. This transition has to be gradual and farmer-centric. Alongside domestic production and diversified sourcing, there is a growing role for nano and speciality nutrients, biofertilizers, composting, crop residue management, and other locally relevant solutions. Circular bioeconomy models can add value by converting local biomass, livestock waste, and organic residues into reliable nutrient sources. However, these models will scale only when they are backed by quality standards, predictable supply, scientific validation, and farmer confidence. For farmers, the key question will always be whether the solution protects productivity and fits into their existing crop cycle. The larger opportunity is to move from input volume to nutrient efficiency. A more diversified nutrient system can support soil health, improve resource use, and strengthen long-term agricultural resilience, while keeping farmer productivity at the centre. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/4039/bees-biodiversity-and-esg-new-sustainability-imperative.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/4039/bees-biodiversity-and-esg-new-sustainability-imperative.html Fri, 05 Jun 2026 15:12:14 +0530 As biodiversity risks rise across Asia's agricultural heartlands, pollinator health is emerging as a critical metric for food security, climate resilience, supply-chain stability and ESG performance On a spring morning in Vietnam's Central Highlands, a coffee farmer walks through rows of flowering coffee trees. The blossoms are brief, delicate and fleeting. For a few precious days, millions of tiny white flowers carpet the landscape, carrying within them the promise of next season's harvest. The farmer knows the rains matter. He knows temperatures matter. He knows fertilizer prices matter. What he may not fully realise is that the future of his crop also depends on a workforce that arrives silently each morning and leaves without sending an invoice. The bees. Thousands of kilometres away, the same quiet drama unfolds across Asia. In China's apple orchards, India's mustard fields, Thailand's tropical fruit plantations, Indonesia's cocoa farms and the oilseed-growing regions of Central Asia, billions of pollinators move from flower to flower, performing one of the most valuable yet least visible economic functions in modern agriculture. They are neither listed on company balance sheets nor tracked in commodity markets. Yet their daily labour supports food systems worth hundreds of billions of dollars, sustains rural livelihoods, underpins agricultural exports and helps maintain the biodiversity upon which entire ecosystems depend. For decades, pollinators occupied the margins of policy discussions. Climate change dominated environmental debates. Carbon emissions became the defining sustainability metric. Biodiversity, though acknowledged, was often treated as a secondary concern. That era is rapidly coming to an end. As climate shocks intensify, supply chains become more fragile and investors increasingly scrutinise nature-related risks, bees are emerging as a powerful symbol of a broader transformation taking place across global agriculture. The conversation is no longer simply about reducing emissions or improving productivity. It is about protecting the ecological infrastructure that makes food production possible in the first place. Nowhere is this more relevant than in Asia. Home to nearly 60 per cent of the world's population and the largest agricultural economy on the planet, Asia sits at the centre of a growing paradox. The region must simultaneously produce more food, strengthen climate resilience and preserve biodiversity. At the heart of that challenge lies an often-overlooked reality: without healthy pollinator populations, the future of agriculture itself becomes increasingly uncertain. That is why bees are no longer just an environmental story. They are rapidly becoming an economic story, a food security story and, increasingly, one of the most important ESG stories of the decade. Asia's Pollinator Powerhouse The scale of Asia's relationship with pollinators becomes apparent when viewed through the lens of global apiculture. According to estimates from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the global honey bee population reached approximately 101.7 million colonies in 2024, representing a 46.6 per cent increase from 69.4 million colonies in 1990. At the heart of this expansion lies Asia. The continent today hosts approximately 45.2 million honey bee colonies, accounting for nearly 45 per cent of the global total and making it by far the world's largest reservoir of managed pollinators. Europe, by comparison, houses 25.4 million colonies, while Africa accounts for 18.5 million and the Americas 11.6 million. Even more remarkable is the pace of growth. Asia's managed bee population has nearly doubled over the past three decades, rising from 23.1 million colonies in 1990 to 45.2 million in 2024. Western Asia recorded a staggering 207.4 per cent increase in bee colonies during this period, while Southeast Asia expanded by 203.9 per cent. Central Asia grew by 148.1 per cent, Southern Asia by 84.1 per cent and Eastern Asia by 43.8 per cent. These figures tell a larger story about the evolution of Asian agriculture. As farming systems have diversified beyond staple grains into horticulture, fruits, vegetables, nuts, spices and plantation crops, the economic value of pollination services has increased dramatically. Every additional bee colony represents not only honey production but also enhanced crop productivity, improved quality and stronger farm incomes. The honey economy itself reflects Asia's dominance. Global honey production reached approximately 2 million tonnes in 2024. China remained the world's largest producer with 456,000 tonnes, while India ranked second with 146,000 tonnes. Together, the two countries accounted for more than 30 per cent of global honey production, reinforcing Asia's position as the centre of the world's apiculture economy. The Pollination Economy Few Balance Sheets Capture Pollination is among the most valuable ecosystem services on the planet, yet it remains largely invisible in traditional economic accounting. The Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that approximately 75 per cent of global food crops depend, at least partially, on pollination. In Asia, that dependence is particularly pronounced because much of the continent's agricultural value comes from pollinator-dependent crops rather than cereals alone. China's apple orchards, Vietnam's coffee plantations, Thailand's fruit exports, Indonesia's cocoa farms, India's mustard fields and Malaysia's tropical fruit industry all rely heavily on healthy pollinator populations. According to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), pollinator-dependent crops contribute between $235 billion and $577 billion annually to global agricultural production. A substantial share of this value originates in Asia. Yet pollination remains one of the world's largest unpaid economic services. It does not appear on company balance sheets. It is rarely incorporated into commodity pricing models. It remains largely absent from agricultural policy discussions. The result is a striking paradox: some of the world's most valuable economic assets continue to operate without formal recognition. The Great Biodiversity Contradiction Despite record numbers of managed honey bee colonies, pollinator ecosystems are facing unprecedented pressure. The rise in managed bee populations can create a misleading impression that pollinator health is improving. Scientists increasingly caution that honey bees represent only one component of a much broader pollinator network that includes wild bees, butterflies, moths, hoverflies, beetles, birds and bats. Many of these species are declining. Across Asia, rapid urbanisation, agricultural intensification, habitat fragmentation and pesticide exposure are reshaping landscapes at extraordinary speed. The region's agricultural success has undoubtedly improved food availability and rural incomes, but it has often come at the expense of ecological diversity. Monoculture farming systems have expanded, natural habitats have contracted and pollinator-friendly landscapes have steadily disappeared. Climate change is intensifying these pressures. Rising temperatures, erratic rainfall, prolonged droughts and shifting flowering seasons are disrupting the delicate synchronisation between plants and pollinators that underpins agricultural productivity. Scientists warn that these disruptions could reduce both pollinator abundance and pollination efficiency across some of Asia's most important food-producing regions. The paradox is striking. The world has never managed more honey bee colonies, yet the biodiversity systems that sustain pollination are becoming increasingly fragile. Why Investors Are Finally Paying Attention For much of the past decade, ESG conversations focused overwhelmingly on carbon emissions. Carbon could be measured. Energy use could be quantified. Climate targets could be benchmarked. Biodiversity, by contrast, often appeared too complex and difficult to translate into financial metrics. That perception is changing rapidly. The emergence of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) signals a broader shift in how investors view environmental risk. Nature loss is increasingly recognised as a material financial issue capable of disrupting supply chains, reducing productivity and undermining long-term asset values. For businesses operating across Asia's agricultural economy, pollinator decline is becoming a direct commercial concern. A coffee company sourcing from Vietnam, a cocoa processor operating in Indonesia, a fruit exporter in Thailand or a supermarket chain dependent on fresh produce all rely on healthy pollinator ecosystems. When pollinators decline, production becomes less predictable. Yields fluctuate. Input costs rise. Supply chains become more vulnerable. What was once considered an environmental concern increasingly resembles a business continuity risk. In this context, bees have become more than ecological indicators. They are emerging as barometers of agricultural resilience and ESG performance. The Business of Bees Is Growing The commercial importance of pollination is also reflected in the growth of the global apiculture sector itself. The global apiculture market is estimated to reach $13.32 billion in 2025 and is projected to grow to $17.15 billion by 2030, expanding at a compound annual growth rate of 5.1 per cent. Rising honey consumption, growing demand for bee-derived products and increasing recognition of pollination's economic value are driving investment across the sector. Notably, Asia-Pacific remains the world's largest apiculture market, while North America is emerging as the fastest-growing region. Yet honey sales tell only part of the story. The true economic value of bees lies not in the products they generate but in the agricultural productivity they enable. Pollination remains the invisible infrastructure underpinning food systems across the continent. From Biodiversity to Business Strategy Asia's challenge is no longer simply about protecting bees. It is about protecting the ecosystems that make pollination possible. As the region grapples with climate change, population growth, resource scarcity and rising food demand, biodiversity can no longer remain a peripheral sustainability issue. It must become a core component of agricultural strategy, corporate governance and investment decision-making. Protecting pollinators requires preserving habitats, encouraging regenerative farming, reducing landscape fragmentation and integrating nature-positive practices into agricultural value chains. It also requires expanding ESG frameworks beyond carbon to recognise biodiversity as a critical form of natural capital. The future of Asian agriculture will not be determined solely by how much food can be produced. It will increasingly depend on how effectively natural systems can be protected while production continues to grow. Infact few natural systems matter more than pollination. For decades, bees have quietly sustained Asia's agricultural rise. Today, they are sending a message that investors, policymakers and agribusiness leaders can no longer afford to ignore: the future of food security, climate resilience and sustainable growth may depend as much on biodiversity as it does on technology, capital or productivity. In the emerging ESG era, protecting bees is no longer just an environmental responsibility. It is becoming an economic necessity. -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/4037/crispr-walks-through-door-gm-couldnt-open.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/4037/crispr-walks-through-door-gm-couldnt-open.html Fri, 05 Jun 2026 12:16:44 +0530 India has released the world’s first genome-edited rice varieties and China is signing safety certificates at speed. However, the politics that buried Bt brinjal and stalled Golden Rice has not gone away — it is simply waiting at the next gate. On 4 May 2025, in an auditorium named after the architect of India’s Green Revolution, Union Agriculture Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan unveiled two unremarkable-looking bags of rice seed. The varieties — DRR Dhan 100, branded “Kamala,” and Pusa DST Rice 1 — looked like any other improved line a public-sector institute might release. They were not. Both had been built using CRISPR-Cas9, and with their release India became the first country in the world to commercialise genome-edited rice developed with its own institutions. For an industry that spent two decades watching transgenic crops collide with courts, street protests and moratoria, the moment was loaded. The same Indian state that imposed an indefinite moratorium on Bt brinjal in 2010, and whose Supreme Court has kept GM mustard in regulatory limbo, had just walked a gene-edited staple onto the market in a single afternoon — no Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) clearance, no multi-year biosafety dossier, no environmental release hearing. The question for anyone running a seed company, writing farm policy or backing an agri-tech venture in Asia is no longer whether gene editing is coming. It is whether the region has genuinely leapfrogged the West’s GM gridlock — or whether the opposition that defeated transgenics is simply re-forming around CRISPR, one allegation and one writ at a time. What the rules actually permit The pivot rests on a regulatory distinction that is easy to state and hard to police: did you add foreign DNA, or not? India’s framework, set out in a March 2022 Office Memorandum from the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, exempts two categories of genome-edited plants — known as SDN-1 and SDN-2 — from the biosafety rules that govern genetically modified organisms, provided the final plant carries no exogenous introduced DNA. SDN, or site-directed nuclease, refers to the cutting tools (CRISPR-Cas9 being the best known) that make a precise break at a chosen spot in the genome. An SDN-1 edit lets the plant’s own repair machinery knock a gene out; SDN-2 uses a short template to make a small, defined tweak. Crucially, neither inserts a gene from another organism. SDN-3 — which does insert foreign genes — remains fully regulated as GM under GEAC. The practical effect is large. Because most plant-breeding applications envisaged today produce SDN-1 or SDN-2 outcomes, the bulk of the gene-editing pipeline falls outside India’s GMO regime. Oversight shifts to Institutional Biosafety Committees, which certify the absence of foreign DNA, and the resulting varieties are released through the ordinary Seeds Act channel rather than the Environment Protection Act. Kamala, for instance, was created by editing the CKX2 (Gn1a) gene in the popular Samba Mahsuri background to lift grain number per panicle; Pusa DST Rice 1 edited a drought-and-salt-tolerance gene in the MTU1010 background. No bacterial gene, no viral promoter — and, in the government’s reading, no GMO. China has built a parallel but more centralised pathway. Its Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (MARA) issued safety-evaluation guidelines for gene-edited plants in January 2022 and follow-up review rules in 2023, sorting edits into four risk tiers and reserving the lightest touch for changes that introduce no foreign sequence. Where India deregulates a whole class, China keeps a government-led, case-by-case review — but one designed to move quickly. It approved its first CRISPR crop, a high-oleic soybean from Shandong Shunfeng Biotechnology, in 2023, and on 25 December 2024 issued a tranche of certificates that included five new gene-edited events — two soybeans and one each of wheat, maize and rice — alongside a batch of transgenic approvals. Recipients included feed group Dabeinong and China National Seed Group, now part of Syngenta Group. The 2024 rice event was China’s first gene-edited rice cleared for cultivation. The contrast with transgenic GM matters commercially, not just scientifically. A Bt cotton or GM mustard event in India can take a decade and tens of crores to shepherd through field trials, environmental assessment and a politically exposed GEAC vote. An SDN-1 rice line can follow the same release calendar as a conventionally bred variety. For breeders, that compresses the distance between a benchtop idea and a farmer’s field from a generation to a few seasons — and changes the economics of who can afford to play. The pipeline behind the headlines The two rice varieties are the visible tip of a deep regional pipeline. India’s public laboratories have been editing toward drought- and salinity-tolerant rice and maize, blast-resistant and low-phytate rice, high-oleic groundnut, beta-carotene-enriched banana, disease-resistant pepper and stress-tolerant tomato. Edited oilseeds — including mustard, the crop whose transgenic version remains stuck in the courts — sit in the queue, offering proponents a politically tantalising prospect: delivering the yield and oil-content gains of GM mustard through a route that sidesteps the GEAC fight entirely. China’s published approvals already span soybean, maize, wheat and rice, with traits running from oil quality to yield and disease resistance — explicitly framed by Beijing as a food-security and import-substitution play. The country planted an estimated three million hectares of biotech maize and soybean in 2025, more than four times the 2024 area, signalling how fast a cautious system can scale once the politics are settled internally. Elsewhere in the region the map is uneven but moving in one direction. Japan was first to market: Tokyo’s Sanatech Seed has sold a CRISPR-edited high-GABA tomato, “Sicilian Rouge,” directly to consumers since September 2021 under guidelines that treat foreign-DNA-free edits as outside GMO rules, requiring only notification. Japan has also cleared gene-edited tiger puffer and red sea bream. Australia excluded SDN-1 organisms from its GMO definition back in 2019. The Philippines built a science-based “plant breeding innovation” process in 2022 and has since ruled a reduced-browning banana and the GABA tomato to be non-GMO. New Zealand, long the regional hold-out, is now drafting a Gene Technology Bill that edges toward a risk-tiered model. Across Southeast Asia, Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines already grow biotech maize, and Bangladesh remains the regional exception that proves a different rule — its publicly bred Bt brinjal is one of the few transgenic food crops in commercial cultivation anywhere in the region. For seed-industry strategists, the takeaway is that Asia is assembling a patchwork of fast lanes for edited crops at the very moment the technology is maturing. The breeder’s case, made by the public scientists who built Kamala and echoed across MARA and Japan’s agriculture ministry, is straightforward: a CRISPR knockout that deletes a few base pairs is indistinguishable in its end product from a spontaneous or radiation-induced mutation — the kind of mutation breeding that has produced hundreds of crop varieties eaten safely for decades. Regulating the process rather than the product, they argue, taxes precision and rewards the bluntness of older techniques. The opposition re-forms That argument has not gone unanswered — and the speed of India’s release has, if anything, sharpened the resistance rather than dissolved it. The Coalition for a GM-Free India, the network that helped block Bt brinjal and contest GM mustard, condemned the rice release within a day, calling the government’s conduct devious and irresponsible and accusing it of acting under corporate pressure. Its core legal claim is that gene editing falls squarely within India’s statutory definition of genetic engineering, and that the 2022 exemption therefore deregulated GM crops by administrative sleight of hand rather than law. By that reading, Kamala and Pusa DST Rice 1 are GMOs released without the confined field trials and high-level clearance the rules require. The scientific objection runs alongside the legal one. Coalition convenor Kavitha Kuruganti and allied scientists point to published work — including studies on CRISPR in rice — arguing that SDN-1 editing is not as precise as marketers claim, and can produce unintended insertions, deletions and rearrangements both at the target site and elsewhere in the genome, with unknown consequences for the proteins a plant produces and for the people who eat it. The precaution they urge is not a permanent ban but mandatory, transparent biosafety testing and labelling before any edited staple reaches a plate. The dispute turned concrete and bitter in October 2025, when the Coalition wrote to Minister Chouhan alleging that ICAR’s own multi-location trial data did not support its yield claims. Kamala, the group said, underperformed at eight of nineteen trial sites in 2023 and showed a flowering-time advantage of about three days rather than the headline twenty. ICAR rejected the allegations as baseless and motivated, and its communications office has defended gene editing as a straightforward extension of mutation breeding, noting that more than ninety percent of Indian cotton farmers adopted Bt cotton within a few years — its evidence that farmers embrace a technology that works. Two further strands give the opposition durability beyond the laboratory. The first is corporate control. Even where edits are public-sector, the underlying CRISPR tools and many enabling patents are held by a handful of firms and universities, mostly Western; farmer movements warn that a deregulated fast lane could entrench seed-industry dominance and erode the right to save and exchange seed — the same anxiety that animated the GM fights, now attached to a technology that is harder to detect. The second is detectability itself: an SDN-1 edit that leaves no foreign DNA can be impossible to distinguish from natural variation, which means labelling and traceability regimes built for transgenics may simply not work. In Japan, that gap has spawned a consumer-led “OK Seed” project that voluntarily labels produce as not gene-edited — a market signal that the absence of mandatory labels does not equal the presence of public trust. The trust question is not confined to democracies with active farmer movements. In China, where civil-society pushback is muted, the pressure point has shifted to transparency: USDA analysts noted that from 2025 MARA stopped publishing its newly approved biosafety certificates, a move that obscures exactly which edited events are entering cultivation and which firms hold them. For a system selling gene editing partly on the promise of rigorous, science-led oversight, that opacity is its own reputational risk — and precisely the kind of governance gap advocacy networks elsewhere seize on. And the courts remain a live venue. The Philippines offers the cautionary case study: in April 2024 the Court of Appeals, acting on a writ of kalikasan sought by Greenpeace Southeast Asia and the farmer-scientist network MASIPAG, ordered a halt to the commercial propagation of Golden Rice and Bt eggplant, citing the constitutional right to a healthful ecology and the lack of full scientific certainty on safety. Greenpeace called the ruling a monumental win; biosafety proponents called it a step backward for a country with real vitamin-A deficiency. The crops at issue were transgenic, not edited — but the judgment demonstrated that a determined coalition can stop an approved GM food crop in its tracks years after regulators signed off, on precautionary and procedural grounds that would transfer cleanly to a CRISPR product. The West as context, not template For Asian adopters weighing all this, Western developments matter less as a model than as a verdict on market access. The headline shift is in Brussels. After the European Court of Justice ruled in 2018 that gene-edited crops must be regulated as GMOs — effectively freezing them out of the EU — the bloc spent years deadlocked. In December 2025, Council and Parliament negotiators struck a provisional deal on a New Genomic Techniques (NGT) regulation that creates a two-tier system: NGT1 plants, those judged equivalent to what conventional breeding could achieve, would be exempt from GMO rules with only a verification step and seed-level identification; NGT2 plants would stay under the full GMO regime. Member states endorsed the compromise in December and the relevant parliamentary committee in January 2026, with a final plenary vote expected around mid-2026 and the rules likely to apply from 2028. The European Parliament’s earlier push for a blanket ban on patenting NGT plants — a sticking point for years — was softened after the Commission’s own analysis warned it would gut research investment. England has already moved faster, with its Precision Breeding regulations entering force in November 2025. The direction of travel in the West therefore now broadly converges with Asia’s: separate the foreign-DNA question from the breeding-method question, and treat the lightest edits as conventional. But two cautions are buried in the detail. First, the EU framework is slower and more conditional than India’s blanket exemption — labelling of seed, exclusions, and a monitoring programme all survive — which means “Europe is opening up” should not be read as “Europe will wave through Asian edited grain.” Second, the patent fight that nearly sank the EU deal is the same corporate-control anxiety driving Asian opposition; it has not been resolved so much as deferred. For export-oriented producers, that ambiguity carries real money. India ships basmati and non-basmati rice into price-sensitive and label-sensitive markets; Vietnam and Thailand are among the world’s largest rice exporters; Japan guards a premium domestic market with strong consumer scepticism. If an importing market — or a single influential retailer — decides an edited variety is a GMO requiring authorisation and labelling, the absence of a detectable DNA signature becomes a compliance nightmare rather than a marketing advantage. The very feature that makes SDN-1 edits regulatorily light at home makes them legally ambiguous at the border. Has the science outpaced the politics? The honest answer is that Asia has won the first round and not the fight. On the proponents’ side, the structural advantages are real and probably durable. The regulatory architecture is built and functioning in India, China, Japan, Australia and the Philippines. The pipeline is broad and aimed at exactly the traits the region needs — drought and salinity tolerance, water and nitrogen efficiency, lower methane from shorter-duration rice. The economic logic is compelling: editing collapses development timelines and lets cash-strapped public institutes, not just multinationals, bring improved staples to market. And the political framing — precision, food security, climate resilience, no foreign genes — is far more defensible than the one transgenics carried. On the opposition’s side, none of the foundations have shifted. The legal challenge that gene editing is genetic engineering under existing statutes is unresolved and could yet reach India’s higher courts. The detectability problem makes labelling and traceability genuinely difficult, which keeps the trust deficit alive. The corporate-control critique attaches as easily to CRISPR as to Bt. And the Philippine precedent shows that an approved crop can be stopped by a precautionary judiciary long after the regulators have moved on. The October 2025 data-integrity row over Kamala is a preview of the next phase of the argument: not “is the technology dangerous” but “can you trust the institutions that cleared it.” For investors, the asymmetry is the opportunity. A transgenic trait that needs a decade of trials and a GEAC vote is a venture few funds can underwrite; an SDN-1 trait that releases on a conventional-breeding timeline turns gene editing into something closer to a software-paced business, where the bottleneck is talent and germplasm access rather than regulatory survival. That is why the names appearing on China’s approvals — Dabeinong, Syngenta’s seed arm — and the licensing posture of trait developers eyeing both the EU’s NGT1 lane and Asian fast tracks are worth watching more closely than any single variety. The risk that prices the deals is not agronomic but political: a successful writ, a labelling mandate from a major export market, or a data-integrity scandal that hardens public opinion can strand an edited portfolio as surely as a failed field trial. For the boardroom and the policy desk, the strategic read is therefore double-edged. The window to develop and commercialise edited staples in Asia is open wider and earlier than anywhere in the West, and first movers in seed, traits and licensing have a genuine head start. But the same forces that turned GM into a twenty-year trench war — litigation, labelling, corporate-control politics and the slow erosion of public trust when a release looks rushed — are intact and now pointed at CRISPR. The science walked through the door GM could not open. Whether it stays in the room depends on whether the breeders, regulators and seed firms now inside choose transparency over speed. The politics is not behind them. It is waiting at the next gate. Editing versus engineering — why the distinction drives the policy Transgenic GM and gene editing are routinely lumped together, but the regulatory split across Asia turns entirely on how they differ. Transgenic GM (the old debate)- A gene from another organism is inserted into the crop’s genome — the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) bacterial gene in Bt cotton and Bt brinjal that makes the plant toxic to certain pests, or the genes added to Golden Rice to produce beta-carotene. The crop now contains DNA it could never have acquired by breeding. This foreign DNA is permanent, inheritable and detectable, which is why GM crops are regulated for biosafety and environmental release, and why their critics invoke cross-species transfer. Gene editing (the new frontier)- Tools such as CRISPR-Cas9 make a precise cut at a chosen point in the plant’s own genome. Regulators classify the outcomes: SDN-1 — the cut is made and the plant’s repair machinery knocks the target gene out or alters it slightly. No template, no foreign DNA. (Kamala’s grain-number edit and Japan’s GABA tomato are SDN-1.) SDN-2 — a short DNA template guides a small, defined change, like correcting a few letters of text. Still no foreign gene retained in the final plant. SDN-3 — a full gene from another organism is inserted. This is functionally transgenesis and stays regulated as GM in India, China and the EU alike. Why it matters for the rulebook. Because SDN-1 and SDN-2 leave no foreign DNA, the end product can be indistinguishable from a plant produced by spontaneous or radiation-induced mutation — techniques used in conventional breeding for decades without GMO regulation. India, China, Japan, Australia and the Philippines have therefore drawn their regulatory line at the presence of foreign DNA rather than the use of a laboratory technique, and the EU’s 2025 NGT deal moves in the same direction with its NGT1/NGT2 split. The catch. That same absence of foreign DNA means an SDN-1 edit cannot be reliably detected or traced after the fact. For proponents, this proves the edit is “natural-equivalent.” For critics, it means labelling, monitoring and consumer choice break down — and that unintended off-target changes could pass unexamined. The science of the distinction is settled; its policy consequences are not. -- Ankit Kankar, Chief Operating Officer- AgroSpectrum Asia & India ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/4026/china-plus-one-meets-hormuz-risk-perfect-storm-reshaping-agrochemical-trade.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/4026/china-plus-one-meets-hormuz-risk-perfect-storm-reshaping-agrochemical-trade.html Thu, 04 Jun 2026 12:07:59 +0530 Exclusive AgroSpectrum interview explores how geopolitical tensions are accelerating procurement diversification across Asia, Africa and Latin America In this interview, Siddharth Gupta, Co-Founder of Atomgrid, argues that the ongoing Hormuz crisis is accelerating a global realignment of agrochemical supply chains, with buyers increasingly prioritising reliability over lowest-cost sourcing. He notes that while India is steadily advancing towards greater domestic manufacturing of active ingredients, deep dependencies on Chinese technicals and intermediates remain a long-term challenge rather than a short-term fix. Gupta highlights emerging opportunities for Indian agrochemical exporters in markets such as Vietnam and Latin America, where concerns over supply disruptions are driving procurement diversification. He also warns that African markets are facing a “double pricing squeeze” from both rising input costs and weakening local currencies, intensifying pressure on smallholder farmers. According to Gupta, the current geopolitical volatility is reinforcing a simple market reality: Suppliers that can guarantee consistent quality, availability and delivery schedules stand to gain significant market share in the years ahead. Is “China+1” no longer a diversification strategy, but an execution test where India is being evaluated less on intent and more on operational reliability? Yes, the qualification bar has shifted. Global buyers are no longer asking "can India supply?" but "can India supply consistently as per required product specifications, on time, and with complete documentation?"In agrochemicals specifically, this is visible in the inquiries that Atomgrid receives: customers want reliable supply in terms of product quality, specifications, packaging, etc., not just product samples. Reliability of the supply chain is now a precondition for even entering the conversation. To what extent is the Hormuz crisis fundamentally reshaping global agrochemical supply chains, given that Gulf-origin sulfur, ammonia, and urea constitute critical upstream inputs across emerging markets? The upstream exposure is real but often misframed. Sulfur, ammonia, and urea are fertilizer inputs — the direct agrochemical active-ingredient supply chain is more affected by gas costs, solvent cost, and freight economics than by Gulf chemical flows specifically. Freight disruption is the most immediate effect for exporters. Rerouted shipping, higher insurance premiums, and unpredictable lead times translate directly into working capital pressure — longer transit windows mean longer cash cycles, especially painful for companies scaling into multiple geographies simultaneously. The crisis accelerates a bifurcation already underway: buyers everywhere are reducing single-corridor dependency. India, which manufactures formulations and active both, is structurally better positioned than most to absorb this shift — provided it can pair supply reliability with competitive pricing. Is India’s agrochemical sector witnessing a structural shift toward import substitution and domestic active-ingredient manufacturing, or merely a temporary margin compression cycle? This is a structural shift on which Indian companies have been working since long and is not only related to the crisis.  But there is a long way to go. Indian companies will have to invest heavily in technical R&D and then setting up manufacturing at scale with the government subsidising the overhead manufacturing costs in order to compete with China.  The honest answer : most technicals and intermediates still have deep Chinese dependency that India cannot replace in the near term. It will have to be done product by product with a very long term view.  How exposed is Vietnam’s export-oriented agriculture to upstream fertilizer and pesticide disruptions, particularly in rice and aquaculture-linked input systems dependent on imported intermediates? Vietnam market is heavily dependent on imports of technicals ( not intermediates ) Vietnam's technical supply chain is overwhelmingly China-sourced. The rise of input prices has led to the market being in  a wait and watch mode.  However, looking at the last 6 months, in our Vietnamese customer conversations we are seeing an opportunity to take market share in certain technical products where India is competitive.  The opportunity for Indian suppliers is not to be the cheapest option but the most reliable alternative.  In Latin America, where large-scale monoculture dominates, does Hormuz-driven volatility amplify systemic risk in soybean, sugar, and maize input economics more than in Asia or Africa? Yes, and the scale is very different. Industrial-scale monoculture — soy in Argentina and Brazil, sugar, maize — operates on thin margins with high input intensity. A 15–20 per cent input cost increase doesn't just squeeze one season; it affects planting decisions, acreage allocation, and forward contract economics in ways that cascade globally. The buyer profile in LatAm is also different — large agribusinesses and cooperatives with sophisticated procurement, not smallholders. These buyers have the scale to demand supply chain diversification and the ability to switch at volume. That makes them high-value early adopters for Indian exporters who can demonstrate reliability. Atomgrid has a deep focus on Latin America markets and we are applying for our product registrations aggressively.  When a crisis creates urgency in buyer procurement, having existing registrations is the difference between being a credible supplier and being invisible. Are African agrochemical markets facing a dual shock of availability constraints and currency depreciation, effectively creating a “double pricing squeeze” on smallholder agriculture inputs? Yes, currency depreciation against the dollar compounds the dollar-denominated freight and availability premium simultaneously. The result is a landed cost squeeze that smallholder agriculture cannot absorb through price increases at the farm gate. In practice, availability matters as much as price. Farmers and distributors will pay a premium for a product they can actually get over a cheaper product with an unpredictable schedule.  A bulk formulation from India with predictable lead times and the right quality is what our customers need when they are looking for an alternative to China.  How critical is execution speed—land acquisition, regulatory clearance, logistics integration—in determining whether India can convert China+1 intent into sustained industrial migration? For chemicals specifically, regulatory clearance speed, both in India (pollution clearances, CPCB compliance) and in destination markets (product registrations) — is the single biggest bottleneck. Land and logistics matter, but they're problems to be tackled later.The companies gaining ground right now are those that started their international registration pipelines 5-10 years ago. That lead time is structural—you cannot compress a 12–18 month registration process with capital alone. Speed advantage is baked in ahead of time, not at the moment of demand.With the agrochemical market seeing a patent cliff in the next 5 years, the above becomes even more important. To what extent does fragmented infrastructure across Indian states dilute the “execution premium” required to fully absorb China+1 manufacturing shifts? Significantly, yes, particularly for companies trying to operate multi-state manufacturing networks. The absence of harmonized GST administration, inconsistent state-level regulatory timelines, and logistics cost variance between clusters all erode the margin advantage India should theoretically hold. In practice, the best-run Indian specialty chemical companies have compensated by concentrating their manufacturing footprint rather than distributing it. Deep presence in one or two clusters beats shallow presence across many. Fragmentation is a problem you solve by design, not by waiting for policy. At what point does “India + execution” become a structural global supply chain standard rather than a transitional narrative in the post-China manufacturing era? When Indian companies stop being described as "China alternatives" and start being the first call, when customers build their global supply chain architecture around India rather than as a hedge against China. That transition happens molecule by molecule, category by category, as Indian companies build the registration moats and customer relationships that make switching costs real.The structural inflection point is probably 5–7 years away at the sector level, but individual companies can achieve it much sooner. The marker is when a global buyer's India supplier is on their approved vendor list for new product launches, not just for existing products sourced from China. For agrochemicals specifically, product registrations are the moat that is irreversible. Once an Indian company holds 50+ active registrations across regulated markets, it becomes structurally embedded in global supply chains in a way that outlasts any geopolitical narrative. That's the transition from transitional to structural. -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/4014/why-maharashtras-women-farmers-bill-could-redefine-political-economy-of-indian-agriculture.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/4014/why-maharashtras-women-farmers-bill-could-redefine-political-economy-of-indian-agriculture.html Wed, 03 Jun 2026 12:40:20 +0530 As India marks the International Year of the Woman Farmer, Maharashtra’s proposed law could become a defining test of how agricultural identity, entitlement and recognition are understood in the 21st century India’s agricultural economy rests on a long-standing and often unexamined assumption: That the farmer, as a category of policy, identity, and political imagination, is primarily male. This assumption persists despite extensive evidence that women constitute a central and, in many regions, indispensable component of agricultural production. Across rural India, women undertake a broad range of agricultural activities, including sowing, transplanting, weeding, harvesting, livestock management, post-harvest processing, seed preservation, and household-level food provisioning. These responsibilities are not peripheral to agricultural systems; they are structurally embedded within them. Yet, in most formal classifications, women’s participation remains insufficiently recognised as constituting independent farmer status, particularly in the absence of land ownership. It is within this context that the proposed Maharashtra Women Farmers Bill assumes significance. While commonly interpreted as a welfare-oriented intervention, the proposal also invites a broader reconsideration of the institutional and economic definition of farming itself. The question it raises is not limited to inclusion, but extends to the criteria through which agricultural citizenship is defined within India’s political economy. Policy rarely begins with legislation  The issue of women’s role in agriculture has been a topic of policy discourse for several decades. The Fourth World Conference on Women (1995) in Beijing highlighted structural constraints faced by women in agriculture across developing economies. In India, Dr M S Swaminathan was among the earliest policy thinkers to systematically articulate the implications of gendered exclusions within agricultural modernisation. Dr Swaminathan’s analysis of the Green Revolution identified a structural contradiction: While agricultural productivity increased significantly, the institutional frameworks governing land ownership, credit access, and extension services remained largely unchanged. Over time, demographic shifts, including male migration from rural areas, led to an increased concentration of agricultural responsibilities on women, without corresponding changes in legal or institutional recognition. This process is often described in policy literature as the “feminisation of agriculture.” However, this term requires careful interpretation. In many cases, it reflects not empowerment, but a redistribution of labour responsibilities in contexts of agrarian stress and economic transition. In 2011, Dr Swaminathan introduced the Women Farmers’ Entitlement Bill in the Rajya Sabha. The Bill proposed a broader definition of “farmer,” extending beyond landownership to include tenant cultivators, sharecroppers, livestock rearers, and other categories of agricultural workers. Although the Bill did not progress, it remains a significant reference point in discussions on agricultural inclusion. More recently, the National Commission for the Entitlements and Welfare of Women Farmers Bill, 2026, has reintroduced these questions within a contemporary policy framework, alongside renewed attention from international organisations, including the United Nations’ designation of 2026 as the International Year of the Woman Farmer. What is measured becomes visible  Recent labour data reflects a significant presence of women in agriculture. According to the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) 2024, women constitute over 42 per cent of India’s agricultural workforce, with higher proportions in several states. However, these figures require careful interpretation, as increased participation does not necessarily correspond to increased economic agency or formal recognition. Much of this participation occurs within informal or unpaid family-based agricultural systems. Women are frequently classified as “self-employed” in agriculture, a category that often includes work without independent income, ownership, or decision-making authority. Land ownership statistics further illustrate this structural asymmetry. The Agriculture Census 2015–2016 records that 13.96 per cent of operational holdings are under women’s names, accounting for 11.72 per cent of total cultivated area. This indicates a significant gap between labour participation and asset ownership within agriculture. Welfare distribution patterns reflect a similar structure. Under the PM-KISAN income support scheme, of the 9.35 crore registered beneficiaries, approximately 2.15 crore are women. This disparity underscores the continued reliance of agricultural policy on land-based definitions of eligibility. Taken together, these indicators point to a persistent institutional distinction between participation in agricultural labour and formal recognition as agricultural producers. It is this structural gap that the proposed Women Farmers Bill seeks to address. “The proposed Women Farmers Bill is a landmark leap toward correcting historical gender imbalances in the agrarian landscape,” said Suraj Mandhare, IAS, Commissioner of Agriculture, Government of Maharashtra. “By officially recognising women as independent ‘farmers’ regardless of land title ownership, we are unlocking their access to essential institutional credit, water rights, and insurance that were previously out of their reach.” Mandhare added that the initiative goes beyond welfare inclusion and attempts to structurally reposition women within the rural economy. “This initiative doesn’t just empower individual women; it strengthens the very foundation of our rural economy by integrating 2026’s International Year of the Woman Farmer goals into state law,” he said. “We are committed to ensuring that the hands that feed the state finally hold the legal rights they deserve.” Land is the grammar of recognition The limited recognition of women as farmers is closely linked to the broader structure of land ownership and inheritance in rural India. Land functions not only as an economic asset but also as a basis for social status, political authority, and institutional access. As inheritance systems remain predominantly male-oriented in practice, women’s agricultural roles often remain decoupled from formal ownership. This produces a structural asymmetry in which a significant proportion of agricultural labour is performed by individuals who do not possess corresponding legal or economic recognition within the system. Statewise (Major States ) distribution of area operated by operational holdings for All Social Groups during Agriculture Census 2010-11 and 2015-16 States/UTsArea (in '000 ha.)% variation in 2015-16 over 2010-112010-112015-16MaleFemaleTotalMaleFemaleTotalMaleFemaleTotalAndhra Pradesh612219338096218021808004-5.64-1.14-1.14Arunachal Pradesh3493138433838380-3.15-3.15-1.02Assam26687129992663532976-0.22-25.60-0.76Bihar55118496388553789364570.475.091.09Chhattisgarh4576503508444345534992-3.1010.03-1.82Goa721589661482-7.53-6.09-7.76Gujarat851513059898832215899978-2.2721.800.80Haryana3082405364629664913609-3.7821.09-1.02Himachal Pradesh9044595589247944-1.384.94-1.09Jammu & Kashmir8394889578947842-5.92-2.80-5.93Jharkhand2893259316528432383091-1.75-8.14-2.36Karnataka101901898121619612210211805-5.6710.75-2.93Kerala1187210151110692211395-9.955.50-7.67Madhya Pradesh1460912041583614128150915670-3.2925.31-1.05Maharashtra17083258519767175162884205062.5411.573.74Manipur16751721648172-2.1377.510.07Meghalaya189972872148430013.56-13.154.46Mizoram9410105100111126.2313.147.32Nagaland97893107490054956-8.03-42.42-10.97Odisha4651148485244181694619-5.0114.00-4.80Punjab39292639673899433954-0.7561.96-0.33Rajasthan1969813292113619109165420873-2.9924.48-1.24Sikkim99410783591-15.8917.30-14.83Tamil Nadu530010566488478810365971-9.66-1.8-7.98Telangana497512126197462913375972-6.9410.35-3.63Tripura2592528525229282-2.7015.39-1.11Uttar Pradesh166149481762216376101117450-1.436.70-0.97Uttarakhand7356881666371747-9.713.57-8.38West Bengal5171110551051591035487-0.23-6.80-0.41All India1415401651015959213778418493157817-2.6512.02-1.11 Source: All India Report on Agriculture Census 2015-16From an economic perspective, this arrangement has contributed to the externalisation of labour costs within agriculture. A considerable portion of agricultural activity relies on unpaid or under-recognised labour, particularly within household-based farming systems. This has implications not only for gender equity but also for the formal measurement of agricultural productivity and rural income. At the same time, empirical studies suggest that women farmers often engage in agricultural practices that emphasise crop diversity, nutritional security, and household welfare outcomes. These patterns are observed across multiple regions, particularly in subsistence-oriented farming systems. Recognition reorganises markets From the perspective of agricultural markets and related industries, formal recognition of women farmers would constitute a significant expansion of the identifiable rural economic base. Integration into formal agricultural classification systems would increase access to institutional credit, insurance mechanisms, digital financial services, and input markets. It would also alter the structure of demand for agricultural goods and services, as women farmers often exhibit different patterns of crop selection and resource allocation, with relatively greater emphasis on subsistence crops and household-level food security. For agri-input industries, fintech platforms, and agricultural service providers, this represents not merely a policy change but a redefinition of the rural consumer and producer base. Mechanisation and technology design may also require recalibration, given that much agricultural equipment has historically been designed around assumptions of male labour and larger landholdings. Similarly, insurance and credit products may require adaptation to reflect the risk profiles of smallholder and diversified farming systems. International economic analysis increasingly recognises the role of gender inclusion in agricultural productivity. The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) has estimated that reducing gender disparities in agrifood systems could contribute significantly to global GDP growth while improving food security outcomes. These findings suggest that gender-based constraints in agriculture are not only social issues but also structural economic inefficiencies. In the Indian context, where women perform a substantial proportion of agricultural labour but hold a relatively small share of land ownership, this mismatch represents a persistent constraint on potential productivity and institutional efficiency. Within this evolving institutional landscape, the reform is increasingly being interpreted through the lens of identity-based exclusion and financial access. As Anjul Tyagi, Agriculture Economist, observes, “This is a long-overdue reform that addresses one of the most fundamental barriers—lack of identity—which has historically excluded women from accessing institutional credit, insurance, and government schemes.” Anjul further notes that the operationalisation of women’s names on the 7/12 land documents carries a structural shift in economic positioning: “By ensuring women’s names on the 7/12 land documents, the proposed bill has the potential to transform them from ‘invisible contributors’ to ‘recognised stakeholders’ in the agricultural economy. This step not only strengthens financial inclusion but also enhances decision-making power at the household and farm level.” Taken together, these perspectives underscore a critical transition point: recognition, while necessary, must be operationalised through administrative coherence and institutional convergence to produce meaningful economic change. Complementing this view, Dr Suhas Budhe, Director of Naturexchange, situates the reform within a wider socio-economic reordering of rural systems. He notes that the initiative “goes far beyond updating land records—it is about rewriting the social contract of rural Maharashtra,” emphasising that formal recognition of women as farmers addresses decades of invisibility while enabling access to institutional credit, government schemes, and extension services historically mediated through informal structures. He further highlights the agronomic and climate dimensions of the reform, pointing out that legal identity enhances women farmers’ ability to adopt climate-resilient practices, diversify cropping systems, and manage weather-related risks. However, he also underscores that such transformation requires enabling conditions, including awareness generation, stronger market linkages, women-led farmer-producer organisations, gender-disaggregated data systems, and local institutional support structures. In this framing, recognition becomes meaningful not as a legal endpoint, but as an entry point into a broader ecosystem of economic, institutional, and ecological change. Adding a complementary industry perspective, Janak Dhameliya, Chairman – Redox Group of Companies, situates the reform within a longer arc of agricultural equity and ownership. He notes, “India is one of the world’s foremost agricultural nations, and the backbone of this achievement is its women farmers. Across every state and every village, women have consistently sustained and strengthened the foundation of Indian agriculture, often without recognition or rightful ownership.” He further emphasises the corrective dimension of the proposed reform, observing that it directly addresses long-standing exclusion from land rights and institutional benefits. “For too many families, agricultural land and government benefits were historically controlled through male lineage, leaving women excluded despite being the real cultivators and caretakers of the land.” Framing the shift as a structural correction rather than symbolic reform, Janak adds, “Now, the system is being corrected. In cases where a husband or family member is no longer present, the rightful benefits and entitlements will no longer be misdirected or withheld—they will be securely transferred to the true heirs, the women farmers who sustain the land.” He concludes that the significance of the bill lies in its redefinition of recognition itself: “This is not just an administrative change; it is a long-overdue correction of injustice, ensuring that women who feed the nation are finally recognised as rightful owners and beneficiaries of their own labour.” The question is no longer who farms India, but who is allowed to count as a farmer The proposed Maharashtra legislation, situated within an evolving matrix of national reform and global discourse on agrarian gender asymmetries, signals a quiet yet paradigmatic shift in the epistemology of Indian agriculture itself. At stake is not simply a welfare intervention, but a reconsideration of the conceptual architecture through which agricultural identity has historically been codified. What constitutes a “farmer”? Can productive labour continue to remain juridically subordinate to proprietary ownership? To what extent does the state’s reliance on land titles as the primary instrument of recognition distort the realities of contemporary rural production systems? These questions gain sharper resonance when set against the lived realities of women in agriculture. As Kanta Singh, Deputy Representative, UN Women India Country Office, observes, “For years, women farmers have remained under-recognised despite their substantial contribution to agriculture. Recognising women as farmers through land rights, access to credit, and policy inclusion is increasingly important.” This highlights a persistent gap between economic contribution and institutional recognition in rural systems. The Maharashtra proposal is seen as a step toward correcting this imbalance. Kanta further notes that “Maharashtra’s proposed bill is a significant step towards advancing gender-responsive rural development and strengthening rural livelihoods.” She also emphasises that meaningful impact will depend on implementation that addresses “longstanding structural barriers to women’s access to agricultural entitlements, institutional finance, extension services, and decision-making.” Under the proposed framework of the Bill, certification by the Gram Panchayat would suffice to establish eligibility for entitlements historically contingent upon land possession. The category of “farmer” is correspondingly reimagined to encompass not merely operational landholders, but also landless cultivators, agricultural labourers, plantation workers, pastoralists, tenant farmers, and sharecroppers — constituencies central to agrarian production yet persistently peripheral to institutional visibility. Equally noteworthy is the Bill’s recognition of migratory agricultural labour. A landless cultivator relocating across state boundaries would be permitted to register within the state of his or her chosen ground of economic engagement, thereby introducing a rare portability into India’s otherwise territorially rigid welfare architecture. In doing so, the legislation implicitly acknowledges the increasingly mobile and precarious character of rural labour markets. For women agricultural workers, the implications are especially profound. The Bill explicitly repudiates the assumption that a woman’s agrarian legitimacy must derive either from marital affiliation or from proprietary claims over land. Instead, it locates her identity in the act of cultivation itself — whether on individually owned land, familial holdings, leased acreage, or land cultivated through sharecropping arrangements. What appears, at first glance, to be a semantic reform is, in fact, a deeper ontological shift: from ownership-based recognition to function-based recognition within the political economy of agriculture. Ultimately, the debate transcends redistribution and enters the more consequential domain of classification. For states do not merely govern through law and welfare; they govern through categories. What is rendered statistically legible becomes administratively actionable, while what remains unclassified is relegated to the margins of policy imagination. The contest, therefore, is not simply over entitlements, but over visibility itself — over who is permitted entry into the formal vocabulary of Indian agriculture, and who continues to labour outside the grammar of recognition. --- Suchetana Choudhury  ( suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com ) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/4004/from-monsoon-dependence-to-climate-intelligence.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/4004/from-monsoon-dependence-to-climate-intelligence.html Tue, 02 Jun 2026 15:48:08 +0530 In an AgroSpectrum webinar featuring experts from HyFarm, BioPrime AgriSolutions and Crystal Crop Protection, the conversation shifted beyond rainfall forecasts to the technologies and strategies that will define resilient farming in the years ahead The debate surrounding the 2026 southwest monsoon has largely been framed around a single phrase: “below normal.” Yet, as industry leaders, scientists and agribusiness executives argued during AgroSpectrum’s recent webinar, the bigger challenge facing Indian agriculture is not whether seasonal rainfall is marginally above or below the long-period average. It is the growing unpredictability of rainfall distribution, temperature fluctuations and extreme weather events that are fundamentally altering the economics and biology of crop production. The webinar brought together three leading voices from across the agricultural value chain—S. Soundararadjane, Chief Executive Officer, HyFarm; Dr. Renuka Diwan, Co-Founder & Chief Executive Officer, BioPrime AgriSolutions Pvt. Ltd.; and Satyender Singh, Chief Executive Officer – Seeds, Crystal Crop Protection Ltd. Together, they offered a sobering yet solution-oriented assessment of how Indian agriculture must evolve to navigate a future defined by climatic uncertainty. What emerged was a consensus that the agricultural sector is entering a new operating paradigm—one where resilience, rather than maximisation, becomes the defining metric of success. The Monsoon Is No Longer the Only Story Opening the discussion, S. Soundararadjane challenged the tendency to view monsoon performance solely through aggregate rainfall numbers. “Climate change is no longer an emerging threat for Indian agriculture—it is the operating reality,” he observed. “The challenge today is not merely deficient rainfall. It is variability itself.” For decades, Indian agriculture managed around reasonably predictable seasonal cycles. Farmers could anticipate sowing windows, crop growth stages and harvest periods with a degree of confidence. That predictability has now eroded. "Climate change has fundamentally altered the rules of farming. The challenge today is not simply drought or excess rainfall—it is variability itself. Farmers are no longer managing a single season; they are managing multiple microclimatic disruptions within that season. In this environment, precision agriculture is no longer a technology upgrade but a critical risk-management system that enables farmers to make informed, hyper-local decisions and convert uncertainty into resilience."— S. Soundararadjane, Chief Executive Officer, HyFarm According to Soundararadjane, farmers are increasingly dealing with multiple climatic disruptions within the same season. Delayed monsoons may be followed by sudden heavy downpours. Excess rainfall events are often succeeded by prolonged dry spells. Temperature fluctuations are becoming more severe, while humidity shifts are creating favourable conditions for new pest and disease outbreaks. “The farmer is no longer managing a season,” he remarked. “He is managing microclimatic uncertainty within the season.” This distinction is crucial. A monsoon categorised as “normal” at the national level may still create severe localised production losses if rainfall arrives at the wrong time, in the wrong quantity, or is concentrated within a few extreme weather events. For farmers, distribution matters as much as volume. Climate Risk Is Becoming Layered and Simultaneous If Soundararadjane framed the problem through the lens of weather variability, Dr. Renuka Diwan expanded the discussion by examining its biological implications. According to Renuka, the climate challenge confronting agriculture today is fundamentally different from what farmers faced even a decade ago. “The issue today is not that climate-related vagaries exist. We know they exist and we have accepted that,” she explained. “The issue is that a farmer can face drought-like conditions during crop establishment and then confront excessive rainfall, waterlogging and humidity-related disease pressures within the same season.” Historically, drought management, flood management and disease management were treated as separate agricultural problems. Today, those challenges are increasingly overlapping. Farmers may experience moisture stress during sowing, followed by flooding during vegetative growth, and then encounter disease outbreaks triggered by prolonged humidity. “The agricultural calendar is no longer characterised by predictable seasonal transitions,” Renuka said. “It is increasingly shaped by rapid and unpredictable climatic shifts.” This reality, she argued, exposes the limitations of conventional agricultural approaches that were designed around relatively stable environmental conditions. Precision Agriculture: From Technology Upgrade to Risk Management System For Soundararadjane, the most significant response to climate volatility lies in precision agriculture. Importantly, he argued that precision farming should not be viewed as a productivity enhancement tool alone. “Precision agriculture is not simply a technology intervention,” he said. “It is a risk-management framework.” The first pillar of this framework is hyper-local weather intelligence. Advances in weather stations, soil sensors, satellite monitoring and digital forecasting platforms now allow farmers to access highly localised information rather than relying solely on district- or state-level advisories. "Climate volatility has fundamentally changed the nature of agricultural risk. Farmers are no longer dealing with isolated challenges such as drought, flooding or heat stress—they are increasingly confronting all of them within the same season. In this environment, resilience cannot be built through any single intervention. The future of agriculture lies in intelligently integrating biologicals, precision agronomy, digital advisories and conventional crop protection tools into a unified, farmer-centric ecosystem."— Dr. Renuka Diwan, Co-Founder & Chief Executive Officer, BioPrime AgriSolutions Pvt. Ltd. In crops such as potato, where HyFarm has implemented precision farming models across Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh, weather stations and soil moisture sensors have fundamentally altered decision-making. Farmers receive mobile-based advisories indicating precisely when irrigation is required and when it can be deferred. The results have been significant. According to Soundararadjane, farmers participating in these programmes have reduced water usage by 30–35 per cent despite already operating drip irrigation systems. Fertiliser consumption has declined by 12–15 per cent, while overall cultivation costs have fallen by nearly 15 per cent. “The objective is not to generate more data,” he noted. “The objective is to convert data into actionable decisions.” The broader lesson, he argued, is that future agricultural competitiveness will increasingly depend on a farmer’s ability to respond intelligently to climatic variability rather than simply endure it. Why Biological Solutions Are Becoming Increasingly Relevant While precision agriculture focuses on decision-making, Renuka highlighted the growing role of biological technologies in enhancing crop resilience. However, she cautioned against simplistic narratives. “Biologicals are not a silver bullet,” she said. Much of the marketing around stress-management products, she noted, often fails to recognise that plant stress develops in stages. At the earliest stage, plants begin sensing environmental disruption and activating internal defence pathways. Many biological products can effectively support recovery during this phase. As stress intensifies, however, plants experience oxidative bursts that damage cellular systems. At this stage, only specialised interventions can restore physiological balance. Beyond a certain threshold, visible crop damage emerges. Cellular membranes, proteins and DNA structures may already be compromised. "Climate change has transformed unpredictability into agriculture’s defining challenge. Farmers today need more than high-yielding varieties; they need seeds capable of delivering stable performance under highly variable weather conditions. Climate resilience is no longer a desirable trait in breeding—it has become an essential requirement for sustaining productivity, profitability and food security."— Satyender Singh, Chief Executive Officer – Seeds, Crystal Crop Protection Ltd “At that point, recovery becomes significantly more difficult,” Renuka explained. This distinction reinforces an important principle: biological solutions must be deployed proactively rather than reactively. The effectiveness of biological interventions depends not only on the product itself but also on timing, crop condition and environmental context. “Not all biologicals are able to withstand all kinds of stress,” she observed. “The power lies in understanding what kind of stress is occurring, how severe it is, and what intervention is needed.” The End of One-Size-Fits-All Agriculture One of the strongest themes to emerge from the webinar was the growing irrelevance of uniform agricultural recommendations. India’s extraordinary agro-climatic diversity has always required local adaptation. Climate change is amplifying that requirement. According to Renuka, many agricultural solutions deployed historically were developed outside India and adapted domestically with limited localisation. “That one-size-fits-all approach is rapidly becoming obsolete,” she argued. A new generation of agricultural innovation is increasingly focused on region-specific and crop-specific solutions designed around local climatic realities. The shift is evident not only in biologicals but also in crop breeding. Seeds Are Becoming Agriculture’s First Climate Defence For Satyender Singh, climate resilience begins long before the crop enters the field. “The conversation around climate change often focuses on delayed monsoons,” he observed. “But the bigger challenge is unpredictability itself.” According to Singh, climate variability is fundamentally reshaping breeding priorities across the seed industry. A decade ago, a single variety could often perform successfully across broad geographic regions. Today, that model is becoming increasingly untenable. Breeders are now developing varieties tailored to specific rainfall windows, sowing periods and environmental conditions. He cited millet cultivation as an example. “In Rajasthan, if rainfall arrives in May, farmers may require one variety. If monsoon onset shifts by several weeks, an entirely different variety may be required,” Singh explained. This level of specificity reflects a larger industry shift toward climate-responsive genetics. Breeding programmes today must simultaneously address drought tolerance, heat resilience, disease resistance, nutrient-use efficiency and shorter growing cycles. The objective is no longer simply maximising yield potential. “The focus is increasingly on delivering stable performance under variable conditions,” Singh noted. Why Short-Duration Varieties Matter One important breeding trend highlighted by Singh is the development of shorter-duration crop varieties. As climatic unpredictability increases, reducing a crop’s exposure to weather-related risks becomes strategically important. Short-duration hybrids allow farmers to complete crop cycles faster while maintaining productivity. They also improve nutrient-use efficiency and provide greater flexibility in managing delayed sowing windows. “The longer a crop remains exposed to unpredictable weather, the greater the production risk,” Singh explained. Short-duration genetics therefore represent an increasingly valuable adaptation strategy for both farmers and breeders. Beyond Yield Maximisation: The Rise of Risk-Adjusted Productivity Across all three expert perspectives, a common theme emerged. The future of Indian agriculture will require a shift away from yield maximisation as the sole objective. Instead, success will increasingly be measured through what Soundararadjane described as risk-adjusted productivity. In practical terms, this means maintaining stable and profitable output despite environmental uncertainty. Precision agriculture contributes through data-driven decisions. Biologicals contribute through enhanced plant resilience. Climate-smart seeds contribute through genetic adaptation. Together, they form complementary components of a broader resilience framework. As Renuka succinctly observed: “The future is not about biologicals versus chemicals. It is about integration.” The Policy Imperative: Building the Innovation Ecosystem The discussion concluded by examining the policy and structural reforms needed to sustain farmer profitability and national food security. For Singh, the starting point is greater investment in agricultural innovation. “Developing climate-resilient seeds is becoming increasingly complex,” he said. “It requires advanced breeding tools, greater scientific investment and longer development cycles.” He argued that India must strengthen support for agricultural research while creating a predictable intellectual property environment that encourages innovation. The existing Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPV&FR) framework has played a valuable role, but emerging technologies such as gene editing, precision breeding and advanced molecular tools require updated regulatory pathways. “Countries around the world are increasingly using advanced breeding technologies to develop crops that tolerate drought, heat, salinity and disease pressures,” Singh noted. “India must ensure its regulatory ecosystem allows researchers and innovators to access these tools responsibly and efficiently.” Equally important is deeper collaboration between public research institutions, private-sector breeders and policymakers. “Climate resilience cannot be achieved through isolated efforts,” he emphasised. “It requires an integrated innovation ecosystem where scientific discoveries move rapidly from research stations to farmers’ fields.” The New Measure of Agricultural Success If there was one overarching conclusion from the webinar, it was that the monsoon itself is no longer the most important variable in Indian agriculture. What matters increasingly is how farmers, technologies, seeds, biologicals and institutions respond to variability. The experts agreed that climate uncertainty is likely to remain a permanent feature of agriculture. The question is not whether farmers will face disruptions, but whether the sector can build systems resilient enough to absorb them. Precision agriculture, climate-resilient genetics, biological innovations and supportive policy frameworks are no longer optional enhancements. They are becoming foundational requirements for sustaining productivity, profitability and food security. As Indian agriculture enters an era where unpredictability is the norm rather than the exception, resilience may well become the most valuable crop the sector can cultivate. -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3986/can-drip-irrigation-future-proof-global-coffee-industry.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3986/can-drip-irrigation-future-proof-global-coffee-industry.html Fri, 29 May 2026 12:13:26 +0530 Netafim’s Shahar Dayan discusses how drip irrigation, digital agronomy and resource-efficient farming could reshape the future of coffee production worldwide In an exclusive interview with AgroSpectrum, Shahar Dayan, Senior Agronomist – Head of Strategic Crops and Sustainability at Netafim, argues that precision irrigation is rapidly evolving from a sustainability initiative into a strategic necessity for the global coffee industry amid escalating climate volatility. Drawing on Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)-backed evidence from Vietnam and broader global field experience, Dayan explains how drip irrigation is delivering measurable gains in yield stability, water efficiency and input optimisation across major coffee-growing regions. He emphasises that while reported outcomes such as 60 per cent lower carbon footprint, 56 per cent water savings and yield gains exceeding 50 per cent vary across geographies, the broader trend is unmistakable: precision irrigation is fundamentally reshaping the economics and resilience of coffee cultivation. The discussion also explores how resource-efficient irrigation systems could redefine long-term supply stability, reduce climate-linked production risks and gradually narrow operational disparities between large estates and smallholder farmers. Dayan further stresses that future agricultural productivity will increasingly depend on integrated systems combining precision irrigation, advanced agronomy, genetics and digital intelligence rather than traditional land expansion models alone. Does the reported 60 per cent reduction in carbon footprint signal a structural breakthrough in coffee production economics, or is it primarily a controlled-condition outcome dependent on specific geographies like Dak Lak, Vietnam? This is more than a single-site result. It builds on over 30 years of Netafim’s agronomic experience working with coffee growers in a wide range of regions, where our irrigation and fertigation protocols have consistently improved productivity and resource efficiency. The Vietnam study puts numbers behind a broader pattern we have seen globally: while the scale of the impact may differ by region, the direction is consistent. Precision irrigation improves both economic and environmental performance. The findings mark an important environmental and operational benchmark, backed by decades of field experience and supported across multiple growing environments. At the same time, the results should be read in context. They come from specific agronomic and geographic conditions, with irrigation methods evaluated side by side under controlled comparisons. To what extent can drip irrigation-driven yield gains of 50 per cent be generalized across heterogeneous coffee-growing ecosystems in Latin America, Africa, and Asia without diminishing marginal returns? The reported 50 per cent + yield increase shows what precision irrigation can deliver in the right conditions, but it should not be treated as a guaranteed outcome everywhere. Yield response depends on climate, soil conditions, plant variety, and farm management. What matters most is not the exact percentage, but the consistency of the result: drip irrigation is a reliable way to improve yield, stability, and input efficiency, especially under growing climate variability. Based on our experience across major coffee-growing regions, including Brazil, Colombia, Central America, Southeast Asia, Africa, and India, we have seen strong yield gains in both Arabica and Robusta systems: Arabica: yields can increase from ~20–25 bags/ha to 70–80 bags/ha under optimized irrigation Robusta (Conilon): yields can rise from ~40 bags/ha to over 100 bags/ha Results vary, but the broader pattern is clear: precision irrigation consistently improves productivity and efficiency and can create value for both traditional smallholders and larger, more modern coffee operations. Is precision irrigation becoming a prerequisite for coffee supply chain survival under climate volatility, rather than a discretionary ESG upgrade for premium producers? Climate volatility is already affecting yield stability, water availability, and crop quality across major coffee-producing regions. That is why more growers are adopting drip irrigation, not just for ESG reasons, but because it helps them manage production more reliably under tougher growing conditions. Adoption will still vary by region and farm economics, but precision irrigation is becoming an important part of long-term supply reliability in coffee. How should investors interpret the trade-off between higher upfront capital expenditure in drip systems and long-term reductions in water, energy, and chemical input costs? Investors should view drip irrigation as more than an upfront infrastructure cost. It is long-term investment in stronger, more efficient farm performance. While the initial spend can be significant, the economics tend to improve over multiple seasons. Lower input use and more dependable output can strengthen the return over time. The key is to evaluate total value, not just upfront cost. The LCA also shows that higher yields with lower resource use can materially improve production efficiency. Could widespread adoption of drip irrigation fundamentally alter global coffee pricing structures by decoupling yield stability from climatic unpredictability? Global coffee prices are influenced by many factors, including demand, trade, and broader economic conditions, so it would be too much to say precision irrigation alone will reshape pricing. What broader adoption can do is improve yield consistency, strengthen climate resilience, and reduce some of the production uncertainty facing coffee-growing regions today. Over time, that could support a more predictable supply outlook and ease some weather-related volatility. Does a 56 per cent reduction in water use meaningfully address systemic water scarcity risks, or does it merely shift the efficiency baseline without resolving regional hydrological stress? A 56 per cent reduction in water use per ton is a meaningful gain in water efficiency and can help ease pressure on limited water resources, especially in climate-sensitive coffee-growing regions. At the same time, water scarcity is shaped by broader regional and watershed conditions. Precision irrigation can help agriculture use water more efficiently and sustainably, while supporting stronger long-term resilience in water-stressed areas. Addressing regional or national water stress requires a broad, multi-stakeholder effort, and agriculture is an important part of that picture. As one of the most proven water management methods, is a practical way to support that effort. To what extent might ESG-driven adoption of precision irrigation create a competitive divide between technology-enabled large holders and smallholder coffee farmers? We are seeing more practical models emerge to make precision irrigation more accessible across the coffee value chain through partnerships, agronomic support, and innovative financing or risk-sharing approaches. That helps reduce the risk of a wider competitive gap. For example, in Vietnam, Netafim has partnered to introduce a dedicated insurance model for smallholders adopting drip irrigation, helping reduce risk and improve accessibility for smaller-scale farmers. In practice, drip irrigation solutions can be adapted to different farm sizes and operating models. While differences will remain between large, well-financed operations and smallholder farms, that gap can be narrowed through efficient system design, stronger agronomic practices, and smart irrigation and fertigation protocols. Smaller growers can also benefit from being more agile in day-to-day decision-making. Are chemical reductions of 46 per cent sufficient to reposition coffee cultivation within regenerative agriculture frameworks, or do they remain incremental improvements within conventional systems? A 46 per cent reduction in chemical use per ton reflects a significant improvement and points to a  more targeted approach to crop management. Precision irrigation is becoming an important part of regenerative agriculture because it helps growers optimize water and nutrient delivery, reduce unnecessary inputs, and support healthier, more resilient farming systems. Regenerative agriculture also depends on broader practices related to soil health, biodiversity, and ecosystem restoration, but technologies that improve resource efficiency and plant performance help make those systems more practical at scale. Overall, the LCA suggests drip irrigation can support more sustainable and regenerative coffee production, especially by helping reduce chemical use. Does the growing body of LCA-backed evidence indicate that irrigation technology—not genetic improvement or land expansion—will be the dominant lever of future agricultural productivity gains?  LCA-backed evidence suggests precision irrigation is one of the clearest ways to improve productivity while reducing environmental impact, especially as water, land, and climate pressures intensify. Beyond coffee, Netafim’s LCAs in crops such as corn and potatoes show similar gains in output and resource use. That said, future productivity gains will come from integrated approaches that combine precision irrigation with genetics, agronomy, and digital tools. Precision irrigation is a key part of that mix, not the only one. Our LCAs reinforce what growers have seen in practice: precision irrigation delivers real value, especially when combined with other advances in genetics and crop management. -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3960/beyond-uber-for-farms-why-agricultural-platforms-must-build-physical-infrastructure-first.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3960/beyond-uber-for-farms-why-agricultural-platforms-must-build-physical-infrastructure-first.html Wed, 27 May 2026 14:04:46 +0530 KisanKraft Chairman Ravindra Agrawal highlights why seasonality and asset intensity make farm mechanization fundamentally different from urban platform models In an exclusive Agrospectrum interview with Ravindra Agrawal, Chairman of KisanKraft, the conversation maps India’s farm mechanization at a clear inflection point, where ownership is steadily giving way to access-based rental models driven by smallholder constraints and seasonal labor shortages. He argues that the rental economy fundamentally improves farm productivity by lowering capital barriers, reducing maintenance burdens, and ensuring time-critical agricultural operations are completed efficiently. However, he highlights that unlike urban “Uber-like” platforms, agricultural mechanization is structurally constrained by seasonality, asset intensity, and complex last-mile logistics, making physical infrastructure as important as digital platforms. Agrawal emphasizes that long-term viability depends on high asset utilization across crops and seasons, supported by granular agricultural data, local intermediaries, and hybrid revenue streams beyond rentals. Looking ahead, he sees mechanization as the entry layer into a broader “farm-as-a-service” ecosystem, where companies like KisanKraft deepen specialization while partnering across advisory, inputs, and value-chain services rather than attempting end-to-end dominance. The shift from ownership to access is reshaping multiple industries. Do you see farm mechanization in India approaching a similar inflection point, and what structural factors are driving this transition? Yes, and the transition has been building for several years. The conditions are finally aligning. For more than 86 per cent of India's farmers work on small or marginal holdings, owning a tractor or a combine was never a realistic option, and the loan burden would outlast the benefit. What's changed in recent years is that the seasonal labor scarcity has worsened, has pushed farmers to look at mechanization more seriously than before. It's not just one big trigger, but several things moving together, i.e., awareness of options and their efficacy, rising household (not just farm) income, and that's usually when real change happens. For small and marginal farmers, capital constraints have long limited mechanization. How does the rental model fundamentally change the economics of farm productivity at the grassroots level? It removes the biggest barrier, which is the upfront cost. Farmers who cannot justify purchasing a Rs 45,000 machine for limited use on their small farm find it economical to rent it only during critical farm operations. Renting also removes the burden of repairs and upkeep of the machine. That's not a compromise but actually the smarter economic decision. Often the machines are rented out with an operator who comes to the farm with the machine and performs the task. And when you work out the numbers on the ground, renting often beats hiring manual labor, too, both on cost and on quality of output. Work gets done faster, more uniformly, at the right time in the crop cycle. That timing piece is underrated; missing the transplanting window by even a few days can affect the yield. So rental isn't just about affordability. It's about getting the right tool at the right time. The idea of an “Uber for agriculture” is compelling but complex. What operational challenges, such as logistics, utilization rates, and seasonality, make farm equipment rental fundamentally different from urban platform models? The Uber comparison comes up a lot, and I understand why it's a clean mental model. But it doesn't really hold up once you get into the specifics. The most obvious difference is seasonality. A paddy transplanter might be in genuine demand for three weeks in a year. That's it. You can't build Uber's utilization assumptions on that kind of demand curve. Your economics must work with the actual reality of agricultural calendars. Then there's the physical complexity. Delivering a machine to a farm, making sure the operator knows how to use it, having basic knowledge, tools and parts, to perform onsite repair, getting it back in working condition, that's a huge logistics challenge. Equipment in field conditions takes a lot of punishment. Maintenance is constant. And when something breaks down during peak season, the farmer can't just cancel and book another one. The consequences are real. Urban platform models are asset-light by design. However, this business is inherently asset heavy. The platform layer is useful and important, but it sits on top of a physical operation that must work well first. In my view, for the viability of this enterprise, it must supplement their rental business by other sources of revenue. For round the year revenue stream, they should look at inputs, advisory, procurement, processing, machinery sales, or even facilitations of government’s extension services. In a fragmented agricultural landscape, how can companies ensure equipment availability, maintenance quality, and last-mile delivery without eroding margins? Many well-intentioned models have struggled here. The answer is not only technology, but dependable physical infrastructure and execution. The answer isn't a clever algorithm; it's physical infrastructure, honestly deployed through a network. Small businesses (aka intermediary services) are the true engines for this effort. You need to be close enough to the farmer that delivery is practical. You need people on the ground who know the equipment and can fix it when something goes wrong. And you need preventive maintenance discipline, because equipment that fails during a critical window doesn't just hurt your reputation, it genuinely affects someone's livelihood. On margins, the key variable is utilization across seasons and crops. If a machine is only earning revenue for six weeks a year, the numbers don't work. Equipment should be selected so that they can be deployed across multiple crops, multiple operations and geographies throughout the year. It requires deep knowledge of local agricultural patterns and operations. It's hard to build, but it's also hard to copy. What role do digital platforms, data, and precision agriculture tools play in making the rental ecosystem more efficient and scalable? Booking and payments are the baseline; that's not a differentiator anymore. What's more interesting is collection of data with high granularity and precision, spread over reasonable geography and time; then interpreting what the data tells you over time. For example, if you know who in your target geography is planning to sow what, when and how much; a lot of planning can be done to ensure availability of farmers’ needs. With multiple seasons in the business, you can track product or service categories which have the strongest repeat demand? Where are there pockets of unmet need that aren't obvious from aggregate numbers? How does usage vary across soil types, crop varieties, and operator experience? If a disease or pest infestation happened in a particular area, can you taken preventive steps, or plan to face it? That kind of smart analysis will help you make better decisions about where to deploy inventory and how to update your portfolio. Smart and Precision tools like GPS-guided equipment and sensor-based systems add another layer. When a farmer can access those through rental, he's not just getting a machine. He's getting a measurably better outcome. That may be a few years into the future, from commodity equipment rental point of view, and but it will happen and it supports an even better relationship with the farmer. How do you see the competitive landscape evolving between OEM-led rental models, local entrepreneurs, cooperatives, and agri-tech startups? It is win-win situation for all actors in this segment. Agriculture is too diverse and a lot of people will have opportunity to contribute and grow with it. OEMs have product knowledge and service networks, but rental operations require a different kind of operations focus than manufacturing. Often, Agri-tech startups have technology and capital but hit a wall with ground realities of small farmer requirement and physical execution. Cooperatives and FPOs have farmer trust but need operational support. Local entrepreneurs are closest to the ground but lack scale. These complex challenges also provide opportunity. What I expect to see is more collaboration and clearer specialization, OEMs focusing on equipment supply and maintenance, platforms handling booking and data, and local operators managing last-mile delivery. The companies that understand where their real advantage sits, and don't try to own every part of the chain, will do better. From a policy standpoint, what regulatory or financial interventions are needed to accelerate the shift toward shared mechanization in India? Working capital is the most urgent gap. Building a rental operation means deploying capital before revenue comes in; you're buying machines ahead of the season. Remember that the entrepreneur needs not only the farm machinery, but vehicles to transport machines from their shop to farm and back. They need tools and workbenches to maintain machinery. They need training in equipment selection, maintenance and operations. Seasonal cash flow profile doesn't fit neatly into traditional bank lending. Targeted credit mechanisms through All India Financial Institutions, built around the seasonal agricultural services business model specifically, would unlock a lot of entrepreneurial energy at the local level. Financial subsidies for small rental businesses and treating them as part of Agricultural Extension services will be essential. Further, ongoing incentives, for say 5 years, linked to actual utilization and farmer outcomes rather than just asset creation would be a meaningful improvement. Simpler things matter too, like same GST treatment for spare parts as machinery, and for rental transactions; standardization around operator training, and clearer liability frameworks for third-party equipment use. Not dramatic reforms, but they would reduce friction considerably. Looking ahead, could access-based models extend beyond equipment to a broader “farm-as-a-service” ecosystem, and where does Kisankraft position itself in that future value chain? Equipment rental is the concrete entry point because the value is visible and aligned with government’s efforts to boost farm mechanization. A farmer can see the difference in a single day's work. That builds the trust that makes everything else possible. From there, the natural extensions, as mentioned earlier, are agronomic advisory, input access, machinery sales, maintenance services for farmer owned machinery, value addition by grading, packing, processing and eventually market linkages. Not because any one company should own all of that, but because farmers are looking for outcomes, not products in isolation. The companies that earn trust at one layer and connect intelligently to adjacent services will have something durable. KisanKraft’s focus is to build deep capability in affordable and practical solutions designed specifically for Indian smallholder conditions, while partnering across the broader agri ecosystem where it creates better farmer outcomes. We have already expanded beyond our strength in mechanization to Seeds R&D. We want to go deep and address farmers’ major pain points one by one. The broader ecosystem is something we'll contribute to and partner with where it makes sense. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3943/ai-emerges-as-sugars-strategic-moat.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3943/ai-emerges-as-sugars-strategic-moat.html Mon, 25 May 2026 14:21:25 +0530 Speaking exclusively to AgroSpectrum, Guillermo Jose Medina LLarena, Chief Digital Architect (CDA) at Grupo Pantaleon outlines how data-driven mills are unlocking recovery gains, sustainability improvements and long-term operational advantages In an exclusive interview with AgroSpectrum, Guillermo Jose Medina LLarena, Chief Digital Architect (CDA) at Grupo Pantaleon, argues that artificial intelligence has rapidly shifted from a digital advantage to a competitive necessity for the global sugar industry. He explains how AI-driven platforms such as the Stoma Suite are helping sugar producers unlock multimillion-dollar operational gains through predictive crop intelligence, mill optimisation and real-time decision-making across the value chain. Medina notes that measurable improvements in sugar recovery, precision irrigation, logistics optimisation and sustainability metrics are fundamentally reshaping how mills manage profitability and climate risk. He further warns that within the next seven years, the industry will likely consolidate around producers that successfully embed AI into core operations, while laggards risk structural decline in an increasingly volatile agricultural economy. Sugar has long operated on thin margins and high volatility. Is AI now a competitive necessity rather than a digital luxury for large producers? It already crossed that line — most producers just haven’t realized it yet. For decades, sugar competed on scale, geography, and political relationships. Those advantages still matter, but they’re no longer sufficient. GLP-1 drugs are structurally reducing sugar consumption. Corn-based ethanol is undercutting margins in biofuels. Climate volatility is making historical yield models unreliable. These aren’t cyclical pressures you can hedge through — they’re permanent shifts in the competitive landscape. What AI changes is the speed at which a producer can detect a problem, understand its root cause, and correct it. A mill running on intuition and weekly reports is operating blind compared to one receiving prescriptive recommendations every four hours based on 100+ process variables. The gap between those two operations will compound every harvest cycle. Within seven years, I believe the global sugar industry will consolidate decisively around producers who mastered this — and those who are still trying to catch up. It won’t be a gradual transition. It will look like a cliff. Stomata Labs claims measurable ROI, including double-digit efficiency gains. What specific operational levers are driving that value creation? The honest answer is that the biggest lever isn’t any single variable — it’s the elimination of the lag between what’s happening in the process and what the decision-maker knows about it. In a traditional mill, by the time an anomaly in juice extraction or boiling crystallization is detected, reported, and acted upon, you’ve already lost hours of recovery. Our Global Recovery Optimizer analyzes the full process continuously and surfaces recommendations to operators in near real-time. In our deployments at Pantaleon’s PSA and Monte Rosa mills, we saw sugar recovery move from 81 per cent to 83 per cent in a single zafra — with statistical significance that removes any doubt about causality (p-value of 1.09×10⁻¹⁸). That half-percentage-point difference, sustained across a full season, is worth millions. On the agronomic side, Stoma Sense combines satellite imagery with proprietary cloud-fill algorithms that give you continuous NDVI monitoring even in tropical cloud cover — which has historically made remote sensing unreliable in precisely the regions where sugar is grown. Knowing actual crop stress at the parcel level, before the cane arrives at the mill, changes the entire harvesting and milling schedule from reactive to planned. Across a 2-million-ton facility, you estimate up to $6.6 million in annual value unlock. How much of that comes from field optimization versus mill performance improvements? We model approximately 60 per cent from mill optimization and 40 per cent from field intelligence — but that framing, while useful for budgeting conversations, obscures the more important point. The $6.6 million figure is conservative and is predicated on the two being connected. Field data that doesn’t inform the mill schedule creates agronomic insights that never become operational decisions. Mill optimization without crop-stage predictive data is reactive by definition. The value unlocks because you close the loop: you know what’s coming before it arrives, and you configure the mill accordingly. The reason we use $6.6 million for a 2-million-ton facility — rather than a larger number — is credibility. We only claim what we can demonstrate with auditable, statistically validated data. Our philosophy is to under-promise on the model and over-deliver on the harvest. The sugar industry is deeply data-fragmented. What was the biggest challenge in integrating agronomic, operational, and commercial datasets into a unified AI-ready system? The honest answer is that the industry spent years trying to solve this — and the challenge wasn’t technical. The technology to integrate these datasets has existed for some time. The challenge was building the right data models: understanding which variables actually drive yield and recovery, which signals are noise, and how agronomic data and industrial process data need to be structured to speak to each other. That took years of working inside real mills, with real operators, through real harvests. There’s no shortcut. You can’t simulate your way to those models in a lab. You learn them by being embedded in the operation — watching what a master boiler knows intuitively and figuring out how to encode that into a system that works even when he’s not on shift. What we built at Pantaleon — which has 175 years of operational history and data — gave us a foundation that others would take a decade to replicate from scratch. That institutional knowledge, now encoded in our models, is arguably as valuable as the software itself. How does embedding predictive intelligence at the crop stage change risk management compared to traditional reactive mill-based optimization? Traditional mill optimization is like reading the news. You find out what happened, you understand why, and you adjust for next time. That’s still valuable — but it’s fundamentally reactive. Predictive crop-stage intelligence is more like having a weather forecast with a confidence interval attached. You know that Block 14 is showing early stress signatures six weeks before harvest. You know that if you delay cutting by eight days, you capture a meaningful tonnage improvement. You know that three sections of cane are maturing simultaneously and will create a mill throughput bottleneck in week seven unless you resequence the harvest plan now. That shift — from reacting to problems to engineering around them before they materialize — changes the risk profile of the entire operation. You’re not just optimizing the mill. You’re optimizing the system. In an industry where a single bad week during peak zafra can wipe out a season’s margin, that’s not a marginal improvement. It’s a structural advantage. In emerging markets where digital maturity varies, how scalable is the Stoma Suite across different geographies and operational complexities? This is where most AgriTech companies fail — and where we’ve deliberately designed differently. The typical enterprise AgriTech approach assumes a level of digital infrastructure, data discipline, and technical staff that simply doesn’t exist in most mills outside of Western Europe and North America. The result is a sophisticated product that requires a sophisticated client to operate it, which limits the addressable market to the top tier of an already-small industry. We built Stoma Suite to deliver value at the operator level, not just the analytics team. The interfaces are mobile-first. The recommendations are expressed in operational language, not data science language. A senior boiler operator doesn’t need to understand the model — he needs to trust the recommendation and act on it. We’ve achieved 70 per cent adoption rates on AI recommendations at our active deployments, which in industrial settings is exceptionally high. That number tells you more about usability than any demo would. On the geographic side — we are already deployed across Mexico, Guatemala, India, and have active pipeline in Brazil and Honduras. Each geography required calibration, but the core models transfer. The data fragmentation problem is universal. The physics of cane processing don’t change by latitude. Beyond efficiency gains, how does AI integration strengthen sustainability metrics — particularly in water use, recovery rates, and carbon footprint? Sustainability in sugar has historically been a compliance conversation. AI makes it an operational one — which is where the real gains live. Recovery rate is the clearest example. Every percentage point of additional sugar recovered from the same quantity of cane is a percentage point less cane you need to grow, irrigate, harvest, and transport to produce the same output. The environmental math is straightforward. Our recovery improvements at Pantaleon translate directly to lower land use intensity per ton of sugar produced. Water is more complex but equally tractable. Stoma Sense’s parcel-level monitoring enables precision irrigation scheduling based on actual crop stress rather than calendar-based rules. In water-scarce regions — which increasingly describes every major sugar-producing geography — that’s both an economic and an existential capability. On carbon, the biggest opportunity isn’t in the mill — it’s in logistics. Harvest sequencing optimization, which our field intelligence enables, reduces the dead mileage and idle time that accounts for a surprisingly large share of cane operations’ fuel consumption. These aren’t soft sustainability claims. They’re measurable, reportable, and increasingly what institutional investors and export buyers require. Looking ahead five years, do you see AI-enabled intelligence becoming a defining moat in global sugar competitiveness? Seven years, not five — but yes, and more definitively than most in the industry are prepared to accept. Here’s the dynamic that people underestimate: AI models get better with data, and data accumulates with deployment. A producer who begins deploying today will have seven harvest cycles of model refinement by the time a competitor decides to start. The models we run today are meaningfully better than the ones we ran two seasons ago, because they’ve learned from two more seasons of real operational decisions and outcomes. That gap is not static — it compounds. What makes this different from previous technology cycles in agriculture is that the moat isn’t hardware or capital — it’s learning. You can buy the same sensors, hire the same data scientists, license the same cloud infrastructure. What you cannot buy is the accumulated harvest-by-harvest calibration of models that have learned what a specific mill, in a specific climate, with a specific variety of cane, does under a thousand different conditions. That takes time. It takes patience. And it takes a willingness to embed deeply in operations rather than sell software from the outside. The producers who treat AI as a long-term operational capability — not a procurement decision — will look back in seven years and understand that this was the moment the industry permanently separated into two groups. We’re helping the right clients make sure they’re in the right group. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3942/karnatakas-excise-architecture-increasingly-caught-between-revenue-and-regulation.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3942/karnatakas-excise-architecture-increasingly-caught-between-revenue-and-regulation.html Mon, 25 May 2026 14:17:55 +0530 CIABC calls for category-neutral taxation and warns against policy distortions driven by simplistic alcohol-strength narratives In an exclusive interview with AgroSpectrum, Anant S Iyer, Director General of Confederation of Indian Alcoholic Beverage Companies (CIABC), argues that Karnataka’s alcohol taxation debate is increasingly trapped between fiscal compulsions and simplistic public-health assumptions that fail to account for actual consumption behaviour. He challenges the perception that lower-ABV beverages such as beer are inherently safer, asserting that alcohol harm must be evaluated through total consumption volume rather than category labels alone, while warning that disproportionate taxation on lower IMFL slabs risks destabilising the regulated legal market. Iyer further contends that excise policy must recognise the industry’s deep economic linkages with agriculture, rural livelihoods, manufacturing and state revenues instead of treating it as an isolated vice sector. As states intensify duty-led revenue extraction amid inflationary and geopolitical pressures, he cautions that excessive taxation could eventually trigger structural market distortions, including downtrading, illicit trade expansion and long-term erosion of fiscal sustainability. If IMFL generates 4–6 times higher excise revenue per case than beer, does promoting beer through policy incentives amount to a deliberate trade-off of fiscal efficiency for public health objectives, and is that trade-off explicitly acknowledged in state excise design? If policy design makes beer relatively cheaper or more favourably treated compared to IMFL, it does amount to a trade-off in fiscal efficiency. The concern is that such a framework may be built on the assumption that lower-strength alcohol categories are inherently safer, while higher-strength categories are automatically more harmful. That is an incomplete way of looking at alcohol consumption. Alcohol-related harm is not determined only by the strength printed on the label. It depends on how much alcohol is consumed, the serving size, frequency of consumption and broader behavioural patterns. In other words, it is not only what one drinks, but how much one drinks that becomes relevant. For example, a 650 ml bottle of strong beer at 8 per cent ABV contains around 52 ml of pure alcohol, which is broadly comparable to two standard servings of IMFL at 42.8 per cent ABV. Therefore, to suggest that one alcohol type is better or safer purely because its strength per ml is lower is a fallacy. From a revenue perspective, IMFL contributes significantly higher excise revenue per case. If policy incentives lead consumers to shift from IMFL to beer, the State may lose revenue without necessarily achieving proportionate public health gains. Such a trade-off, if intended, should be explicitly modelled and transparently acknowledged in excise design. When CIABC argues that category-neutral policy is essential, how should regulators reconcile structural differences in alcohol content, consumption volume and tax yield without implicitly favouring one category over another? Category-neutral policy does not mean ignoring structural differences between alcohol categories. It means that those differences should be assessed through comparable and objective parameters such as alcohol content, serving size, actual consumption volume, tax yield, route-to-market structure and market impact. Across states, excise policies have generally been designed to enhance revenue year-on-year without overt discrimination between alcohol categories in so far as excise duty is concerned. Differences, if any, are usually seen in distribution and route-to-market structures. For example, in some states, departmental stores or standalone vends may be permitted to buy and sell wine, beer or RTDs under differential licence fee structures. The key point is that excise duty should not implicitly favour one category merely because it is perceived as milder. A lower alcohol percentage does not automatically translate into lower alcohol impact if the product is consumed in larger volumes. A 650 ml strong beer can deliver alcohol comparable to two standard servings of spirits. A level playing field would require all categories to be assessed on comparable principles. If the design makes one category significantly more attractive merely because of lower ABV, without considering actual volume of consumption and revenue contribution, it can unintentionally favour that category. The risk is that revenue extraction may follow a simple but problematic pattern: higher taxes on spirits to drive revenue and lower taxes on low-alcohol beverages to drive consumption shifts. Such an approach can distort the market unless carefully calibrated. At what precise threshold does excise-led premiumisation shift from being a revenue optimisation strategy to becoming demand suppression in lower IMFL slabs, particularly given the reported 6 per cent volume decline post-duty hikes? There is no precise universal threshold because the impact varies by state, income level, consumer behaviour, pack size, category mix and price elasticity. However, there is enough anecdotal evidence as well as actual experience in the past to show that price increases in lower slabs can lead to revenue depletion on a like-to-like basis. In such cases, excise revenue enhancement happens only because duties are increased year-on-year, not because of genuine volume growth. The lower slabs are highly sensitive to price increases and display clear price elasticity. When consumers in these slabs are repeatedly exposed to duty-led price increases, demand can stagnate, decline, or shift to other categories and channels. Premiumisation is healthy when consumers voluntarily move to better-quality products due to rising incomes, brand preference and improved product experience. It becomes demand suppression when mass, lower-priced products are made unaffordable through taxation. Mass, lower-priced products account for the bulk of IMFL volumes and have already seen pressure after recent duty increases. Therefore, any further escalation must be carefully calibrated. The objective should be to support premiumisation without destabilising the regulated legal market. If 85 per cent of IMFL volumes are concentrated in lower slabs 1–5, does continued taxation pressure in this segment represent strategic upgradation of consumption or unintended erosion of mass-market accessibility? If 85 per cent of IMFL volumes are concentrated in Slabs 1 to 5, continued taxation pressure in this segment is more likely to create unintended erosion of mass-market accessibility rather than genuine strategic upgradation. There is also an important regional context. Unlike several parts of North, West and East India, where country liquor forms a separate low-price category, southern states have banned country liquor. Consequently, lower-priced regulated IMFL becomes the affordable entry point for many consumers and plays an important role in keeping consumption within the legal and quality-compliant market. If these lower-priced regulated spirits become disproportionately expensive, it can alter consumer choices in ways that affect legal market volumes, State revenue, employment and the broader manufacturing ecosystem. It may also create unintended social and market consequences if consumers move away from regulated products. Genuine upgradation happens when consumers move to premium products by choice. It should not be forced through sudden tax-led price escalation in the lower slabs. A responsible excise framework must protect access to regulated legal products while gradually encouraging value-led premiumisation. How should governments evaluate whether revenue growth is being driven by real consumption expansion versus price inflation, especially in a market facing simultaneous input cost shocks and currency depreciation? Revenue growth should be evaluated the way it is done in any other industry: by separating price-led growth from real volume-led growth. Governments should examine category-wise volumes, slab-wise movement, MRP increases, product mix, input cost inflation, currency impact and changes in consumer behaviour. If revenue is rising only because duties and prices are increasing, while volumes are flat or declining, then the growth is not structurally healthy. It is revenue growth through inflation, not market expansion. In our experience, State Governments tend to increase duties year-on-year through various levies at their disposal. They are often more focused on revenue growth than volume expansion. However, for long-term fiscal stability, it is important to understand whether the legal market is actually expanding or whether consumers are merely paying more for the same or lower volumes. Market forces should be allowed to determine pricing and quality points. Companies balance short-term market realities with long-term consumer, stakeholder and investor interests. Excise policy should not become a substitute for normal commercial pricing. CIABC highlights systemic spillovers into agriculture and allied industries. Should alcohol policy explicitly account for upstream rural economic dependency, or does that risk embedding structural demand reliance on a regulated vice sector? Excise policy should explicitly account for upstream rural and economic dependency because the production of spirits is deeply interlinked with agriculture and allied industries. Spirits production depends on Extra Neutral Alcohol (ENA) and bulk spirit, which are derived from agricultural sources. Molasses comes from sugar production from sugarcane. Grain-based alcohol uses carbohydrate sources such as rice, maize and other grains. In many cases, the rice used for distilling ENA is broken rice or rice that cannot find a market for direct human consumption in the conventional sense. Therefore, alcohol production and agricultural produce are interlinked and interdependent. The industry supports farmers, sugar mills, grain suppliers, packaging, logistics, manufacturing and employment. Recognising this linkage does not mean encouraging irresponsible consumption. It simply means that policy should not treat the sector as an isolated retail category. Alcohol is a legitimate regulated industry with significant upstream economic impact. A balanced policy should combine sensible regulation with recognition of these rural and allied-sector dependencies. If beer is often positioned as a lower-risk category in public health discourse, how should policymakers weigh epidemiological arguments against the reality of higher consumption volumes that may neutralise per-unit alcohol advantages? Policymakers should evaluate total alcohol intake rather than relying only on category perception. Beer may have lower alcohol per ml, but it is generally consumed in larger serving sizes. Therefore, higher consumption volume can neutralise or even outweigh the per-unit alcohol advantage. A 650 ml bottle of strong beer at 8 per centABV contains around 52 ml of pure alcohol, which is broadly comparable to two standard servings of IMFL at 42.8 per cent ABV. This shows why category-based assumptions can be misleading. It is also important to recognise that alcohol consumption patterns vary across markets. In many Western markets, beer forms a large share of alcohol consumption by volume, while spirits account for a smaller share. Heavy beer consumption has also been a relevant factor in alcohol-related public health concerns in those markets. Therefore, it is not accurate to assume that beer is automatically harmless or materially safer merely because it is lower in strength per ml. The relevant policy measure should be actual alcohol consumed, not the category name. Is the current excise architecture in states like Karnataka evolving toward a consumption-shaping policy instrument, or does it still primarily function as a revenue extraction mechanism with incidental behavioural effects? The current narrative around the proposed reform appears to be moving towards a consumption-shaping policy instrument. However, in practical terms, excise policy will still primarily function as a revenue extraction mechanism unless it is supported by broader public health and behavioural interventions. Taxation alone cannot manage behavioural or health outcomes. If governments wish to address public health concerns, they should do so through separate and targeted initiatives, as is done in other sectors. These may include responsible retailing, awareness programmes, enforcement against drunk driving, legal drinking age compliance, quality standards and regulated availability. Excise duty should not become a blunt instrument that distorts categories or price-regulated products beyond the reach of consumers. If prices go out of reach of the masses, substitution effects can take place through illicit markets or other harmful alternatives. This can create wider law-and-order and public health concerns. Therefore, excise policy should balance revenue stability, category neutrality, affordability in the legal market and responsible consumption measures. In a scenario of sustained input cost inflation and geopolitical volatility, what is the long-term fiscal ceiling for excise escalation before it triggers irreversible structural shifts in consumption patterns, substitution effects, or illicit market expansion? The fiscal ceiling is reached when additional duty increases stop producing sustainable revenue expansion and instead begin to distort the market. The warning signs are declining legal volumes, downtrading, substitution into lower-yield categories, pressure on working capital, cross-border movement and expansion of illicit or unregulated markets. Excise tax cannot be escalated indefinitely. A tax that keeps increasing does not necessarily reduce consumption in a clean or predictable manner. It can simply push consumers towards cheaper, unsafe, informal or substitute products. Governments should allow market forces to determine pricing and quality points. Regulation should focus on availability, accessibility and quality. Availability can be governed through store numbers and location. Accessibility can be governed through legal drinking age and responsible retailing. Quality protocols are already embedded through FSSAI and excise compliance frameworks. Alcohol is a legitimate regulated industry that generates employment, investment and upstream benefits to agriculture. The sustainable approach is sensible regulation, predictable taxation and stable market-based pricing rather than continuous duty escalation. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3941/fertiliser-dependence-now-strategic-national-risk-not-just-agricultural-issue.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3941/fertiliser-dependence-now-strategic-national-risk-not-just-agricultural-issue.html Mon, 25 May 2026 14:14:00 +0530 In an exclusive Agrospectrum interview, Aashay Doshi highlights how global geopolitics and supply chain shocks are pushing input costs higher, exposing India’s vulnerability in food production systems Global geopolitics, climate risks, and supply chain disruptions are reshaping the agriculture sector. Food security and sustainable farming have therefore become critical for India. In an exclusive interview, Aashay Doshi, Chairman of the IMC Chamber of Commerce Agriculture & Food Processing Committee, speaks about India’s fertiliser dependence, climate-tech innovation, regenerative farming, challenges faced by farmers, and the relevance of Atmanirbharta amid climate disruption. Doshi is currently a director with Bloomfield Agro Products. He is working closely with over 400,000 farmers across India, promoting the use of biological fertilizers and micronutrients. Before joining Bloomfield, he studied and worked in the United States and returned to India to start a company focused on agricultural solutions. Under his leadership, the company has delivered an average of 3 times return on investment for farmers and over 35 per cent crop yield increases on crops like sugarcane, oil palm, cotton, tea, coffee, and grapes. India speaks of Atmanirbharta in agriculture, yet remains exposed to imported fertilisers, edible oils, and pulses. At what point does self-reliance become structurally impossible without climate-tech transformation rather than incremental reform? Probably, we are past the point where we can simply make minor adjustments to address this issue. Indian agriculture is still dependent on imported fertilizers, edible oils, and pulses, and the degree of risk increases tremendously in cases of geopolitical disruptions. Fertilizer is no longer an agricultural issue. It needs to be taken as seriously as energy security. India continues to import substantial amounts of fertilizers such as DAP, potash, and urea. Recently, India imported up to 2.5 million tonnes of urea with substantially higher costs caused by growing supply issues due to the West Asia conflict. Reportedly, the cost of a tonne increased up to $935-$959 from $500 per tonne a few months ago. Additionally, the shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz and the Red Sea cause higher costs related to transport and insurance. This means that it is no longer merely about supply chain efficiency but also strategic risks. It is here that the importance of technologies dealing with climate becomes apparent. It doesn’t matter whether the technology is bio-fertilizers, regenerative farming, nanotechnologies, precision fertilization, or soil regeneration – all of them are urgently needed solutions for the future. The aim is not only to cut down chemical usage but also to ensure resilience from external shocks. On the other hand, there is no room left for radical shifts. Economically, farmers should be capable of implementing the changes to the new system. Climate technologies in agriculture are often celebrated as breakthroughs, yet adoption among marginal farmers remains limited. Is the real constraint technological, or is it the absence of viable economic architecture for diffusion at scale? The bigger challenge today is not the absence of technology. In many cases, the technology already exists. The real issue is whether farmers feel economically secure enough to adopt it. Even today, nearly 43–46 per cent of India’s workforce depends on agriculture despite the sector contributing a much smaller share to GDP. That itself shows how socially and economically sensitive agriculture remains. A farmer does not make decisions based on conference discussions around sustainability. He makes decisions based on risk, income stability, and whether the crop will ultimately sell. That is the practical reality on the ground. Farmers who have used chemical fertilizers for many years naturally feel more at ease with methods that provide visible results in their activities. Methods of regeneration and use of biofertilizers are different as they take some time to enhance soil biologics, nutrient absorption, and soil health. This makes sense, but this takes time. This is precisely why adoption is not a solitary activity. Farmers need financial assistance, advice, market certainty, and the assurance that the adoption of a new method will make things better. In organized ecosystems where there is a certain type of product like sugarcane and oil palms, there will be higher adoption since farmers have customers at the other end of the spectrum. So, innovation is just one side of the coin; the next step will involve trust-building and alignment from an economic standpoint. Farmers who have used chemical fertilizers for many years naturally feel more at ease with methods that provide visible results in their activities. Methods of regeneration and use of biofertilizers are different as they take some time to enhance soil biologics, nutrient absorption, and soil health. This makes sense, but this takes time. This is precisely why adoption is not a solitary activity. Farmers need financial assistance, advice, market certainty, and the assurance that the adoption of a new method will make things better. In organized ecosystems where there is a certain type of product like sugarcane and oil palms, there will be higher adoption since farmers have customers on the other end of the spectrum. If precision agriculture depends on data, satellites, and AI systems, who ultimately owns the intelligence layer of farming—the farmer, the state, or the technology provider—and what does that imply for sovereignty? It is going to be among the most significant policy issues concerning agriculture in the coming decade since agriculture is increasingly driven by data. There are more and more decisions being made regarding irrigation, planning, fertilizers, insurance, and financing based on information provided by AI and satellites. The farmer must remain at the centre of this framework. Technology companies will obviously build platforms and tools, while governments will create regulations and safeguards. But if farmers lose ownership or visibility over how farm-level data is being used, then we risk creating a new form of dependency. Earlier, agriculture depended heavily on imported physical inputs. Tomorrow, there is a possibility of becoming dependent on imported intelligence systems and data ecosystems. India therefore needs strong domestic capability in agricultural AI, climate analytics, digital infrastructure, and satellite-linked advisory systems. Agricultural sovereignty in the future will depend not only on who produces the inputs but also on who controls the intelligence layer of farming. You have argued that collectivisation, not land consolidation, is key to agricultural reform. But can collective models realistically overcome entrenched issues of credit access, land tenure insecurity, and fragmented policy implementation? Collectivisation is often misunderstood in the Indian context. It is not simply a social idea. It is an economic necessity for a country where landholdings are highly fragmented. Large-scale land consolidation is difficult in India for social and political reasons. But farmers can still achieve operational scale through Farmer Producer Organisations, cooperatives, and cluster-based farming systems. India has already promoted more than 10,000 Farmer Producer Organisations across the country, although many of them still face governance and scalability challenges. The direction, however, is correct because agriculture becomes far more viable when farmers can aggregate procurement, negotiate collectively, access finance more efficiently, and connect directly with organised buyers. The confidence factor also matters significantly. Farmers become more willing to adopt new technologies when they know there is market visibility for the output. We have seen this ourselves in crops where organised value chains already exist. Once income visibility improves, willingness to experiment with better practices also improves.  Collectivisation alone will not solve every structural issue, but it remains one of the strongest available tools for reducing fragmentation within Indian agriculture. India’s fertiliser dependency is often framed as a supply-chain issue. But given geopolitical shocks and import concentration, should fertiliser itself now be treated as a strategic vulnerability comparable to energy security? Absolutely. Fertiliser should now be viewed as part of India’s strategic security architecture. In recent years, it has been made clear that agriculture and geopolitics cannot be separated anymore. A dispute occurring thousands of kilometres away can suddenly impact the cost of fertilizers, shipping routes, insurance, and ultimately, food inflation in India. The disruption caused by the Red Sea and the larger issues in West Asia brought out the vulnerability of the global supply chain system during times of instability. It is still going to take months before the shipping system and pricing structure normalizes even if there is an improvement in the geopolitical environment tomorrow. India must increase its capacity within the country when it comes to fertilizer production, alternate sources of nutrients, bio-fertilizers, and regenerative agriculture. The government plays a major role here, but industry involvement, innovations, and awareness among farmers are equally important. India cannot keep relying too much on external logistics for food production. Bio-fertilisers and regenerative practices are widely promoted, yet chemical fertiliser consumption continues to rise. Does this reflect scientific limitations of alternatives, or policy inertia embedded in subsidy structures? The issue is less about scientific limitation and more about long-established structural behaviour. India’s subsidy framework was originally designed during a period when the country’s biggest challenge was food shortage. The immediate priority after Independence was increasing food production rapidly, and chemical fertilisers played a major role in helping India achieve food security. But agriculture today is dealing with a very different set of problems — declining soil quality, water stress, lower organic carbon, and long-term sustainability concerns. At the same time, farmers are practical decision-makers. If one system gives visible short-term results and remains heavily subsidised, farmers will naturally continue using it. Bio-fertilisers and regenerative systems work differently because they focus on rebuilding soil biology gradually over time. There is no realistic scenario where India suddenly becomes fully organic. But there is also no sustainable future where soil health continues deteriorating endlessly. The transition has to be balanced, phased, and economically practical for farmers. Can climate-tech meaningfully address yield gaps without simultaneously reshaping market structures that determine price realisation for farmers, or will technology alone simply optimise an unequal system? Technology alone cannot solve structural inequality within agriculture. India remains one of the world’s largest agricultural producers, yet productivity levels across several crops still remain below countries such as China and the United States. In many crops, China’s per-hectare productivity remains significantly higher because of stronger mechanisation, input efficiency, irrigation systems, and integrated market structures. Technology can definitely improve efficiency, optimise water usage, and improve nutrient management. But unless markets improve, farmers may still not receive enough economic benefit. The majority of Indian farmers remain trapped in a low-power price regime with poor market connectivity. For farmers to practice climate-smart techniques requiring patience and investments, there must be some rewards in the market for this. This responsibility lies on consumers, wholesalers, exporters, processors, and policy makers. Sustainable farming practices with minimal residue and traceable food production systems need to gain greater visibility in the market. Else, the potential impact of technology would only be to improve efficiency in a skewed system. Atmanirbharta is often defined as self-sufficiency, but in an interconnected climate-disrupted world, is resilience a more accurate metric than independence—and should policy language evolve accordingly? Perhaps resilience is the term that is more relevant in today’s situation. Absolute self-reliance is not practical or even necessary when speaking about globalization. What really matters is the ability of the country to absorb shocks without breaking down the food chains, as well as farmers and consumers who rely on them. The world prices for food remain quite high compared to those before COVID, and it seems like climate and geopolitical risks will remain with us. This is precisely what makes resilience more pertinent than isolation today. As far as agriculture is concerned, resilience translates into improved soil conditions, diversified supply chains, effective use of water resources, greater domestic capacity, income stability for farmers, and reduced vulnerability to external shocks. Ultimately, India’s agricultural future hinges not on disconnecting from the rest of the world but on the extent to which we improve our internal systems. ----- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3915/beyond-food-versus-fuel-debate-rethinking-indias-ethanol-economy.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3915/beyond-food-versus-fuel-debate-rethinking-indias-ethanol-economy.html Mon, 18 May 2026 11:36:37 +0530 GEMA President Dr. C.K. Jain explains to AgroSpectrum why ethanol must be viewed as part of India’s larger strategy for energy resilience and rural growth In an exclusive interview with AgroSpectrum, Dr. C.K. Jain, President of the Grain Ethanol Manufacturers Association (GEMA), argues that India’s ethanol programme must be viewed through the broader lens of energy security, rural income generation, and agricultural surplus management rather than as a simplistic “food versus fuel” debate. He challenges widely cited claims around ethanol’s water footprint, asserting that modern grain-based ethanol plants operate with significantly lower process-water consumption while increasingly shifting toward diversified feedstocks such as maize, agricultural residues, and second-generation biofuels. Dr. Jain also highlights how ethanol blending has reduced crude-oil dependence, generated foreign-exchange savings, and created additional market opportunities for farmers by utilising surplus and damaged grain stocks. While acknowledging the commercial and logistical challenges facing second-generation ethanol, Jain maintains that India’s long-term biofuel future will depend on balancing sustainability, feedstock diversification, farmer welfare, and energy resilience within a larger clean-energy transition. The ethanol industry argues that the “10,000 litres per litre” figure is misleading because it conflates rainfall, crop cultivation and industrial water use. But for an ecologically stressed country like India, shouldn’t the public care about the total water footprint regardless of where that water is consumed? Are you drawing a technical distinction that may not matter on the ground? India’s water security concerns are valid and deserve serious attention. However, the widely cited “10,000 litres of water for one litre of ethanol” figure is misleading because it combines rainfall, agricultural activity, and industrial process water into a single number. It does not reflect the actual water consumed within ethanol plants. Modern grain-based ethanol plants in India typically consume around 3 to 5 litres of process water per litre of ethanol, supported by recycling systems and process-efficiency technologies. It is equally important to separate agriculture from ethanol production. Rice and paddy in India are cultivated primarily for food consumption and food security. Ethanol production does not drive paddy cultivation. The industry largely utilises surplus rice, broken rice, damaged food grains, ageing stocks unfit for human consumption, and milling by-products that already exist within the agricultural system. India regularly faces grain surplus and storage-management challenges. Productive utilisation of excess grain helps reduce wastage while creating an additional source of income for farmers. In a country where agriculture remains central to livelihoods and rural growth, ensuring farmers receive economic value from surplus produce is an important policy objective. Further, a significant share of paddy cultivation in India is rain-fed. Ethanol production is also gradually shifting towards maize, which is comparatively less water-intensive. The larger debate, therefore, cannot be reduced to a simplistic “ethanol versus water” argument. Ethanol should be viewed within the broader context of agricultural surplus management, farmer welfare, energy security, and rural economic growth. Grain ethanol has overtaken sugar-based ethanol in ESY 2023–24, and GEMA positions maize as a more sustainable feedstock. But if ethanol demand scales aggressively under future E85 and E100 ambitions, what prevents maize itself from becoming the next water-intensive or food-security flashpoint? Are we simply shifting the pressure from one crop to another? Maize is fundamentally different from highly water-intensive crops like sugarcane and is increasingly being viewed as a more sustainable feedstock within India’s ethanol roadmap. In India, a large share of maize cultivation is rain-fed, which reduces dependence on groundwater. At the same time, it is important to separate food production from ethanol production. India’s ethanol programme is not based on diverting food away from people. The policy framework prioritises surplus grain, damaged grain, broken rice, and excess agricultural output that would otherwise create storage pressures or risk wastage. India has periodically faced significant surplus rice stocks after meeting food-distribution and buffer-stock requirements. As per Food Corporation of India data, rice stocks crossed 530 lakh tonnes in 2024, nearly four times the required buffer norm for that period. Productive utilisation of such surplus helps strengthen farmer incomes while reducing pressure on public storage systems. Companies purchasing surplus or damaged grain for ethanol production create an additional economic avenue for farmers that may otherwise not exist. Importantly, the future ethanol ecosystem will not depend on a single feedstock. The sector is already moving towards greater diversification through maize, agricultural residues, crop waste, biomass, and second-generation ethanol. The larger objective is to build a balanced biofuel ecosystem that supports rural incomes, improves utilisation of agricultural surplus, and strengthens India’s energy resilience. You describe criticism of ethanol as an “attribution error,” arguing that India’s water crisis predates the blending programme. But doesn’t the ethanol ecosystem now risk reinforcing exactly those unsustainable cropping incentives — particularly in politically sensitive states where procurement, subsidies and energy pricing already distort agricultural behaviour? India’s agricultural and water-management challenges are long-standing structural issues shaped by decades of cropping patterns, procurement systems, irrigation practices, and rural economics. These challenges existed well before the Ethanol Blended Petrol Programme and cannot be attributed solely to ethanol production. It is also important to recognise that ethanol production does not determine what farmers grow for food consumption. Rice and grain cultivation in India are driven primarily by food-security requirements and agricultural policy. The ethanol industry largely utilises surplus grain, damaged grain, and ageing stocks that remain after food and buffer-stock needs are met. What the ethanol ecosystem does provide is an additional market for surplus agricultural output. That creates incremental income opportunities for farmers, particularly in an agriculture-dependent economy where stable rural earnings are critical for broader economic growth. The sector is also evolving towards more diversified feedstocks such as maize, agricultural residues, and second-generation ethanol. Sustainability concerns around crop planning and resource management should continue to be addressed through better agricultural policy, irrigation efficiency, and regional planning. The answer is not to undermine ethanol, but to improve sustainability across the larger agricultural ecosystem while ensuring farmers benefit from productive utilisation of surplus output. Ethanol blending has undeniably delivered foreign exchange savings and reduced crude imports. But how should policymakers weigh energy security against groundwater security? At what point does strategic fuel substitution become environmentally self-defeating in a country facing accelerating aquifer depletion? Energy security and agricultural sustainability should not be viewed as competing priorities. For a country like India, both are essential to long-term economic stability and development. India imports nearly 88 to 89 per cent of its crude oil requirements, making the economy highly vulnerable to external price shocks and geopolitical uncertainty. At the same time, the Ethanol Blended Petrol Programme has helped reduce petrol imports by replacing a portion of fossil fuel demand with domestically produced ethanol. According to government estimates, ethanol blending has helped India save more than Rs 1.1 lakh crore in foreign exchange between 2014 and 2024 while reducing crude-oil dependence and supporting rural economies. India’s broader agricultural system also continues to face storage-management and post-harvest challenges. Large quantities of surplus grain and damaged food stocks require productive utilisation after food-security obligations are met. As per Food Corporation of India data, rice stocks crossed 530 lakh tonnes in 2024, far above prescribed buffer requirements. Ethanol production provides one such avenue while generating additional income opportunities for farmers and reducing wastage. The sector is also evolving towards more diversified and sustainable feedstocks, including maize, agricultural residues, and second-generation ethanol technologies. The larger policy challenge is to strengthen agricultural productivity, improve storage and supply-chain efficiency, and ensure better resource management across the rural economy. Ethanol should therefore be viewed as one component within a broader strategy that supports energy resilience, rural development, and more efficient utilisation of agricultural surplus. India’s ethanol programme is increasingly being framed as both a climate solution and a rural economic stabilisation mechanism. But is there a risk that the programme survives politically not because it is the most sustainable energy pathway, but because it has become economically indispensable to powerful agricultural and industrial lobbies? India’s ethanol programme should be viewed within the broader context of energy transition, agricultural economics, and rural development rather than simply through the lens of sectoral interests. The programme has expanded because it addresses multiple national priorities simultaneously. It helps reduce crude-oil dependence, creates productive use for surplus agricultural output, and provides an additional source of income for farmers in a country where agriculture remains central to livelihoods and economic stability. It is important to recognise that ethanol production in India is not based on diverting essential food supplies away from consumption. The sector primarily utilises surplus grain, damaged grain, broken rice, and ageing stocks that remain after food-security and buffer-stock requirements are met. For farmers, this creates an additional market that improves value realisation and reduces the risk of produce going to waste or remaining locked in costly storage systems. In an agriculture-dependent economy, higher rural incomes contribute not only to farmer welfare but also to broader economic growth. At the same time, it would be incorrect to suggest that the programme survives only because of industrial or political interests. Its continued expansion reflects the fact that it delivers measurable economic and strategic value across multiple sectors, including energy security, rural income generation, and more efficient utilisation of agricultural surplus. Any large-scale national programme involving agriculture and energy will naturally create economic stakeholders, but that alone does not invalidate its broader public-policy relevance. No single energy pathway can independently solve India’s future energy and climate challenges. Ethanol is one component within a larger transition that will also include renewables, electrification, green hydrogen, and improvements in efficiency. Its long-term relevance will ultimately depend on continuously improving sustainability, feedstock diversification, economic efficiency, and its ability to deliver balanced value across both the energy and agricultural ecosystems. Second-generation ethanol from crop residues is often presented as the long-term sustainable answer. Yet commercially, progress has remained slow despite years of policy support. What are the hard realities the industry rarely discusses: cost economics, feedstock logistics, technology viability, or policy inconsistency? Second-generation ethanol holds significant long-term potential because it utilises agricultural residues and biomass that do not compete directly with food consumption. However, scaling 2G ethanol commercially is far more complex than often assumed. One of the biggest challenges is cost economics. Compared to first-generation ethanol, 2G projects require significantly higher capital investment, more complex technologies, and higher operating costs. Feedstock logistics are another major hurdle. Agricultural residues are geographically dispersed, seasonal, bulky to transport, and expensive to aggregate and store. Building a commercially viable biomass supply chain at scale requires major infrastructure investment and long-term policy certainty. Technology maturity is also still evolving globally. Commercial-scale operations require further improvements in conversion efficiency, operational reliability, and feedstock flexibility before they become fully competitive. That said, India has already taken important steps through policy incentives, pilot projects, and public-private participation. Initiatives such as the Pradhan Mantri JI-VAN Yojana were introduced to support commercial-scale second-generation ethanol projects using agricultural residues and biomass. Under this scheme, the government approved financial assistance for projects by Indian Oil Corporation in Panipat, Bharat Petroleum Corporation in Bargarh, HPCL in Bathinda, and Numaligarh Refinery in Assam. India has also operationalised one of Asia’s first large-scale 2G ethanol biorefineries in Panipat, Haryana. Built by Indian Oil Corporation at an estimated cost of over Rs 900 crore, the facility uses nearly 2 lakh tonnes of rice straw annually to produce around 3 crore litres of ethanol while also creating an economic use for agricultural residue that would otherwise contribute to stubble burning. The long-term direction, therefore, remains clear. The future ethanol ecosystem will continue to diversify towards agricultural residues, crop waste, biomass, and advanced biofuels, while first-generation ethanol continues to support the productive utilisation of surplus grain and strengthen rural incomes. The ethanol debate today appears trapped between two competing narratives, “green fuel saviour” and “water guzzling disaster.” If you strip away industry advocacy and activist alarmism, what is the one uncomfortable truth both sides are still refusing to acknowledge about India’s biofuel future? India’s energy transition must be viewed in the context of the country’s scale, agricultural economy, and long-term development priorities. Ethanol has emerged as an important component within this transition because it simultaneously supports energy security, rural incomes, and more efficient utilisation of agricultural output. The ethanol debate is often framed in overly simplistic terms, whereas the reality is far more interconnected. India’s ethanol programme is not only about blending fuel. It is also about strengthening domestic energy resilience, reducing import dependence, and creating additional economic value within the rural economy. India continues to face recurring challenges around grain-surplus management and storage capacity after meeting food-security and buffer-stock obligations. Ethanol production provides a productive economic avenue for such surplus while generating additional income opportunities for farmers and strengthening the agricultural value chain. The sector is also steadily evolving through feedstock diversification, increased use of maize, agricultural residues, biomass utilisation, and second-generation ethanol initiatives. India has already taken important steps in this direction through policy incentives, commercial-scale 2G ethanol projects, and investments in biomass-based technologies. This transition reflects a broader effort to build a more resilient and diversified biofuel ecosystem that is aligned with India’s long-term goals around energy security, reduced import dependence, rural development, cleaner fuel alternatives, and more efficient utilisation of agricultural resources. Ultimately, ethanol should be viewed not as a standalone solution, but as one important component within a broader national strategy focused on energy resilience, farmer welfare, rural prosperity, and long-term economic growth. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3914/memory-of-land-women-partnership-and-quiet-transformation-of-global-agriculture.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3914/memory-of-land-women-partnership-and-quiet-transformation-of-global-agriculture.html Fri, 15 May 2026 16:19:33 +0530 How women sustain global agriculture beneath formal systems of land, labour, and finance—and why food systems remain structurally incomplete without them In the first light of day—before markets open their shutters, before satellites finish their quiet scanning of fields, before policy desks begin translating reality into reports—agriculture is already in motion. It begins in small, unrecorded acts: hands sorting seed by touch and memory, bodies tending livestock that recognise the rhythm of care more than clock time, labour moving fluidly between soil and stove, field and household, without the clean boundaries that economics prefers. Across much of the world, this early work is carried disproportionately by women. Not as an exception, and not as a footnote, but as routine—repeated, distributed, and essential. Yet agriculture is still often written as though it begins later, at the point where visibility starts: when inputs are purchased, when land is formally registered, when yields are counted, when harvests enter trade systems and become data. Everything before that moment is treated as background. Everything after it becomes the story. Between these two versions of agriculture—the lived and the measured—there is a quiet but persistent gap. It is not simply a gap in data, but a gap in recognition. It is precisely within that space, half-seen and undercounted, that women have long sustained agricultural systems, holding together the parts that do not easily appear in spreadsheets or policy frameworks, yet without which nothing else would function. What emerges from global research, then, is not a marginal narrative of inclusion waiting to be completed. It is something more fundamental and more unsettling: Women are not positioned at the edge of agriculture, waiting to be drawn into its centre. They are already embedded in its centre of gravity—structuring how food is grown, processed, preserved, and distributed. The question, therefore, is not whether women participate in agriculture. They already do, at scale and across systems. The real question is whether the systems that define agriculture are capable of seeing that participation clearly enough to build upon it. Scale: The workforce that statistics partially capture International estimates consistently place women at roughly 40 per cent of the global agricultural workforce, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization. On paper, this is already a substantial share. But it is also only a partial rendering of reality—one that captures what is formally counted, while leaving much of what sustains agriculture outside the frame. The moment unpaid labour is included, the contours of the picture shift. Food processing that never enters markets, seed saving passed through households rather than institutions, water collection measured in kilometres walked rather than income earned, care responsibilities that make agricultural labour possible in the first place—these are not auxiliary tasks. They are the infrastructure of survival in rural economies. Yet they rarely appear in the same datasets that define agricultural “participation.” Time-use studies across rural economies make this imbalance harder to ignore. When unpaid labour is accounted for, women’s total workload in agrifood systems is consistently higher than men’s, often by 20 to 30 per cent. This is not a marginal statistical variation. It is a redistribution of time so deep that it quietly shapes everything else: the hours available for paid work, the ability to access training, the likelihood of engaging with markets, and even the capacity to adopt new technologies. Agriculture, in this sense, is not a single occupation for women. It is an overlapping set of obligations—productive and reproductive, formal and informal, visible and unseen. It stretches across household economies, informal exchange networks, and subsistence systems that rarely enter official accounting frameworks. Not because they lack economic weight, but because they resist the language through which modern economies prefer to measure value. The result is a structural paradox that global data repeatedly circles but never fully resolves: women are central to food systems, yet they remain partially invisible within the systems that define those same food systems. The measurement problem: When agriculture is only what can be counted How agriculture is measured is not a neutral technical choice. It determines what becomes legible as “work,” what becomes policy-relevant, and what is left outside intervention. Most formal statistical systems prioritise what can be easily quantified: registered landholdings, commercial output, input consumption, and monetised production. These indicators are important, but they are also selective. They tend to privilege formal markets and structured ownership systems, which do not reflect how much of global agriculture actually operates—particularly in smallholder and mixed subsistence contexts. In these systems, production is distributed rather than centralised. A household garden may supply nutrition without ever appearing in trade statistics. A shared plot may be cultivated through informal arrangements that leave no administrative trace. Food may move through local exchange networks where value is social as much as monetary. Food and Agriculture Organization analyses consistently show that women play a substantial role in these systems, particularly in smallholder and subsistence agriculture. But this role is difficult to quantify precisely because it is embedded in household economies rather than formal market transactions. It is present in output, but absent in classification. As a result, key agricultural activities—seed saving, post-harvest processing, food preparation, informal trading—often sit outside national agricultural accounts. They are functionally essential but statistically peripheral. This creates a structural distortion in how agriculture is seen. Systems appear more formal, more mechanised, and more male-dominated than they actually are on the ground. The economy becomes narrower in measurement than it is in practice. What is missing, then, is not labour. It is not even scale. What is missing is visibility—an ability to recognise agricultural systems in their full, layered form, rather than only in the parts that conform to existing metrics. Land: Where inequality becomes structural If labour defines participation in agriculture, land defines power. And in most farming systems around the world, that line of power is still sharply drawn. Across global datasets, women are consistently less likely than men to own or control agricultural land. Even in regions where women make up a substantial share of the agricultural workforce, they remain a minority among registered landholders. The imbalance is not accidental, and it is not purely legal. It is built through layers of inheritance norms, customary practices, administrative procedures, and documentation systems that tend to privilege male ownership by default. In many rural contexts, land is not simply allocated—it is inherited, transferred, witnessed, and recorded through systems that were not designed with gender parity in mind. Even where formal law guarantees equal rights, informal enforcement often determines actual access. The result is a quiet but persistent gap between legal entitlement and lived reality. This gap matters because land is not just a productive asset. It is the entry point to everything that follows in agriculture. Without secure tenure, farmers are less able to access credit, because land is often required as collateral. Without credit, investment in irrigation systems, mechanisation, soil restoration, or improved seed varieties becomes difficult. Without those inputs, productivity is constrained—not by capability, but by the structure of access. In other words, the limitations are not technical. They are systemic. World Bank analyses have repeatedly shown this pattern in parts of Africa and other developing regions: women’s farms often record lower yields per hectare than men’s farms. But the same evidence also shows something equally important. When women’s access to land, credit, and inputs is improved, the productivity gap narrows significantly. In some cases, it narrows substantially enough to change household-level food security outcomes. The implication is direct, and it is uncomfortable in its simplicity. The productivity difference is not inherent. It is constructed through unequal access to the foundations of farming itself. Land, then, is not merely a productive asset within agriculture. It is the threshold through which every other resource flows. It determines who can invest, who can scale, who can absorb risk, and ultimately, who can shape the trajectory of agricultural systems over time. In that sense, land is not just where agriculture begins. It is where inequality becomes structurally fixed—or structurally undone. Finance: The invisible barrier behind productivity Finance is often discussed in agriculture as a technical constraint—something that can be solved with better products, smarter lending models, or expanded outreach. But on the ground, it functions less like a technical gap and more like a structural filter: Deciding who can scale, who can invest, and who remains locked into low-productivity systems. Formal financial systems are built on a narrow set of requirements. Collateral is central. Credit histories matter. Documented income streams are expected. These conditions appear neutral in design, but in practice they are deeply uneven in their effects. Women farmers are less likely to meet them, not because they are less economically active, but because their economic activity is more often informal, distributed, and unrecorded in ways that banks recognise. Lower land ownership compounds the problem. Without land titles, collateral options shrink. Without collateral, credit access weakens. Without credit, the ability to move beyond subsistence or low-input farming becomes limited. The constraint is cumulative, and it reinforces itself over time. Microfinance has expanded access in many regions and has played a meaningful role in bringing financial services closer to rural households. But its limits are also clear. Loan sizes are frequently too small to support mechanisation, irrigation infrastructure, or larger productivity investments. In effect, microfinance can smooth consumption cycles, but it rarely shifts structural capacity at scale. Digital finance is often presented as the next breakthrough. Mobile banking, digital credit scoring, and fintech platforms promise to bypass traditional barriers. Yet they introduce a different risk: If algorithms are built on incomplete or biased data, they can replicate existing exclusions in more automated form. Informal labour, seasonal income patterns, and non-monetised agricultural contributions often remain invisible to these systems, which still depend on formal financial footprints. The outcome is a persistent capital gap that runs through the entire agricultural system. It shapes what inputs farmers can afford, how much risk they can absorb, whether they can invest in productivity improvements, and how they engage with markets. In practice, finance does not simply support agriculture. It quietly determines its boundaries. When inclusion works: Women as system builders Despite structural constraints, evidence from multiple regions shows that when barriers are reduced, women are not only participants in agriculture—they become system designers. In East Africa, women’s participation in coffee cooperatives has strengthened value chains and improved market stability. In West Africa, women dominate shea production networks that have evolved from informal collection into structured global supply chains. In South Asia, dairy cooperatives have integrated millions of women into formal markets, stabilising income and improving household nutrition. In Latin America, women-led agroecological systems have strengthened biodiversity and climate resilience. In Southeast Asia, access to mechanisation and extension services has significantly improved rice productivity in women-managed farms. Across Europe, women are increasingly present in organic and precision agriculture systems, often leading diversification and sustainability practices. These are not isolated successes. They are evidence of what happens when structural constraints are reduced: productivity increases, systems stabilise, and innovation becomes more widely distributed. Conclusion: the system beneath the system The global evidence on women in agriculture does not describe a marginal development concern. It describes something more fundamental: a structural foundation on which food systems already rest, whether or not they formally acknowledge it. Women constitute a significant share of agricultural labour across the world. They contribute substantially to food production in smallholder, subsistence, and mixed systems. They are central to seed preservation, household food security, and local market economies. Yet this centrality is paired with persistent structural constraint—unequal access to land, finance, technology, and institutional decision-making. This is not a contradiction in participation. It is a contradiction in power. The work is present, but the control over resources and direction is unevenly distributed. The most telling evidence comes from places where those constraints are reduced. Where women gain secure land rights, where credit systems become accessible, where extension services and technology reach them directly, the outcomes shift in measurable ways. Productivity rises. Household resilience strengthens. Agricultural systems respond more effectively to climate and market shocks. Innovation is no longer concentrated; it becomes distributed. Nothing in this pattern suggests dependency on a specific model or geography. It suggests something more general: when structural barriers are lowered, women do not simply participate more fully in existing systems—they alter the functioning of those systems themselves. Agricultural transformation, therefore, cannot be understood only as a question of output or efficiency. It is also a question of access—of who is enabled to produce, who is able to decide, and who ultimately benefits from the system that is built. Beneath every visible agricultural structure—markets, yields, technologies, policies—there is another system operating more quietly. It is less documented, less measured, but equally decisive. It is the system of participation, access, and control. Within that system, women are not positioned at the margins waiting for inclusion. They are already part of its memory—and increasingly, part of its direction. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3865/konkans-alphonso-under-climate-stress-when-weather-volatility-and-market-distortion-converge-in-indias-premium-mango-economy.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3865/konkans-alphonso-under-climate-stress-when-weather-volatility-and-market-distortion-converge-in-indias-premium-mango-economy.html Tue, 12 May 2026 16:10:05 +0530 Erratic monsoon extension, sudden cold waves, and collapsing flowering cycles push Maharashtra’s iconic Alphonso belt into an unprecedented agrarian crisis The Alphonso landscape of Konkan—spanning Ratnagiri, Devgad, and the adjoining coastal belt—has slipped into a season that growers struggle to recognise. What was once an annual choreography between soil, sky, and sea breeze now feels fractured, as though nature has misplaced its own timing. For decades, farmers here have lived by a quiet certainty: the monsoon would retreat, the land would dry into a soft stillness, and the mango trees would respond in synchronised bloom. That rhythm was not written in manuals but in memory, passed through seasons that rarely betrayed expectation. This year, that memory has begun to blur. The rains did not leave when they were supposed to. Instead, they lingered deep into November, draping orchards in persistent moisture and blurring the transition from monsoon to winter. The land, instead of drying into its usual anticipation, remained suspended in humidity—unable to reset, unable to prepare. When change finally arrived, it did so sharply. December did not arrive as a gentle winter but as an abrupt interruption. A sudden drop in temperature swept across the Konkan belt, arriving not as a gradual seasonal shift but as a climatic jolt. It came at the very moment orchards were meant to awaken into flowering. The result has been a quiet failure in one of nature’s most delicate signals. Across groves, farmers describe trees that seem uncertain—branches thick with vegetative growth but hesitant to enter bloom, as though the biological instruction to flower never fully arrived. In some pockets, flowering is scattered and weak; in others, it is absent altogether, leaving orchards visually unchanged where they should have transformed. What is unfolding is not merely a reduction in yield. It is the breakdown of a rhythm that once defined the very identity of Alphonso cultivation in Konkan—a rhythm where climate, memory, and livelihood once moved in alignment, and now no longer do. Flowering Collapse and the Breakdown of Yield Formation In Alphonso cultivation, flowering is not just a stage in the crop cycle—it is the moment everything turns. It is where months of care, expenditure, and expectation quietly decide whether they will mature into income or dissolve into uncertainty. In Konkan’s orchards, this moment has always carried a sense of anticipation, as if the landscape itself pauses before revealing its annual promise. This year, that pause has stretched too long—and then failed to resolve. Across large stretches of the Konkan belt, flowering has emerged uneven, hesitant, and in many orchards, strikingly incomplete. What should have been a synchronized burst across thousands of trees has instead unfolded as scattered, irregular patches of bloom, with large sections of orchards remaining visually unchanged, as though the season never fully arrived. Farmers describe a pattern that is difficult to reconcile with lived experience. In many holdings, only a small fraction of trees have entered productive flowering, while the majority have remained locked in vegetative growth. Even where flowering has occurred, it has often been weak, fragmented, and short-lived. Early field estimates suggest that only about 10 to 15 percent of expected flowering has translated into viable fruit set in several pockets. But even this limited formation has not held steady. In multiple orchards, young fruit has begun dropping prematurely, unable to withstand the lingering physiological stress carried over from the disrupted climatic cycle. What is unfolding is not simply a reduction in yield. It is a visible imbalance in the tree’s internal energy distribution—where growth continues outward, but reproduction falters inward. The trees are alive, active, and green, yet unproductive in the very sense that defines their economic purpose. This shift signals something deeper than seasonal variability. It reflects a breakdown in yield formation itself, where the biological rhythm that governs flowering, fruit setting, and retention no longer aligns with environmental cues that once guided it so precisely. For farmers, the implications are immediate and severe. A season that fails at flowering does not merely reduce harvests; it dismantles the entire economic architecture built around it. What remains is not just a smaller crop, but a disrupted system of expectation—one where planning, investment, and return no longer move in predictable sequence. In Konkan’s Alphonso belt, the orchard has not stopped growing. But it has stopped responding in the way it once did. Income Collapse in a Monocrop Orchard Economy Under Climate Volatility For Konkan’s mango growers, Alphonso is not merely a crop—it is the financial axis around which the entire year rotates. In this monocrop orchard economy, income is not distributed across seasons or diversified across produce. It is concentrated into a single, fragile harvest window that determines household stability, debt repayment capacity, reinvestment in orchards, and even basic consumption for months ahead. When that window weakens, the impact is immediate and absolute. This year, that equilibrium has collapsed. Farmers across the Konkan belt have already absorbed the full cost of the season long before harvest—labour for pruning and orchard upkeep, repeated applications of inputs, maintenance through the monsoon cycle, and the continuous care required by perennial orchards that do not allow seasonal switching or fallback crops. These investments are locked in early, with returns entirely dependent on successful flowering and fruit set. But the return cycle has not arrived. With flowering severely disrupted and fruit formation remaining minimal, the gap between expenditure and realisation has widened into a financial rupture. What should have been a season of recovery has instead become a season of deferred collapse, where costs remain fixed but income evaporates. The consequence is a liquidity shock that spreads quickly through rural households. Daily consumption planning becomes uncertain, repayment cycles tighten, and reinvestment into orchards for the next season becomes increasingly difficult. In a system with limited diversification, there are no internal buffers strong enough to absorb such a shock. What intensifies this crisis is not only the loss of output, but the climatic sequence that triggered it. The extended monsoon period stretching into November prevented orchards from entering the dry post-monsoon phase essential for flowering initiation. Instead of the expected seasonal reset, orchards remained trapped in lingering moisture and high humidity, delaying the biological transition that governs reproductive growth. Just as the system struggled to stabilise, it was confronted by the opposite extreme. December brought an abrupt and unseasonal cold spell, introducing thermal stress at a critical reproductive stage. This sudden shift disrupted flowering synchronisation, weakening fruit set and destabilising early development across orchards. Together, these back-to-back climatic deviations have dismantled the environmental sequencing that Alphonso cultivation depends on—first by delaying it, then by disrupting it entirely. Farmers are increasingly reading this not as seasonal variability, but as a deeper structural change in climate behaviour itself. The familiar language of “bad season” is giving way to a more unsettling recognition: that the baseline itself is shifting. In this emerging reality, risk is no longer cyclical and recoverable within a season. It is becoming structural, cumulative, and increasingly unpredictable—turning what was once a stable orchard economy into one exposed to continuous climatic uncertainty. Market Distortion Amid Production Scarcity In a normal agricultural cycle, scarcity tends to sharpen value. When supply falls, prices rise, and the benefit of that imbalance typically flows—at least partially—back to the farmer. But this season in Konkan’s Alphonso economy, that basic equation is no longer holding true. Despite a sharp contraction in production, growers are not witnessing proportional gains at the farmgate. The expected price uplift, which should naturally accompany reduced availability, is being diluted by structural distortions in the market. At the centre of this distortion is the question of identity. Genuine Alphonso from Konkan—particularly from Ratnagiri and Devgad—has become increasingly difficult to isolate within the broader supply chain. As production tightens due to climate-induced flowering failure, mangoes from other regions are entering the market and being positioned under the same premium geographical labels. In a season where authentic supply is already constrained, this blending of origin has intensified competition not on quality alone, but on branding and perception. The outcome is a market where geographical authenticity is steadily losing clarity. What was once a tightly defined identity linked to soil, climate, and place is now being stretched across multiple origins, weakening the distinction that once supported premium valuation. For farmers, this creates a paradoxical outcome. Even as orchards produce less, the market does not reward scarcity in a straightforward way. Instead, value is redistributed through layers of aggregation and re-labelling, where origin becomes less visible and price discovery becomes less reflective of actual production conditions. The erosion of this link has a deeper consequence. It weakens consumer trust in origin-based branding while simultaneously limiting the ability of genuine growers to command the premium historically associated with Konkan Alphonso. In effect, scarcity exists in the orchards, but it is not fully visible in the marketplace. And where it is not visible, it does not translate into proportional economic advantage for those who bear the cost of its creation. Farmer Leadership Warns of Climate Shock Turning Into Income Collapse Farmer leaders are increasingly framing the current crisis not as a routine seasonal aberration, but as a clear manifestation of climate-induced structural disruption in Konkan’s Alphonso economy. According to Raju Shetti, former Member of Parliament and Founder President of Swabhimani Kisan Sanghatana, Maharashtra, the Alphonso belt is undergoing what he describes as an unprecedented climate shock. He notes that extended monsoon conditions stretching into November, followed by abnormal cold spells, have disrupted the natural flowering cycle in a manner never previously witnessed in the region. As a result, December flowering has largely failed, with only around 10 to 15 percent of expected fruit setting achieved in several orchards, further compounded by heavy post-harvest losses. He further points to a parallel stress unfolding in the marketplace, where limited genuine Maharashtra Alphonso supply is being diluted through the entry of mangoes from other states sold under premium geographical labels such as Ratnagiri and Devgad Hapus. This, he argues, is eroding both price integrity and consumer trust at a moment when scarcity should have strengthened producer realisations. In his assessment, the situation has moved beyond seasonal fluctuation into what he terms a direct conversion of climate risk into income collapse, necessitating immediate climate-linked subsidy support and targeted financial assistance for affected growers. At the policy level, concerns are intensifying alongside agrarian distress. Ganesh Gavakar of the Swabhimani Shetkari Sanghatana has described the situation as an unprecedented crisis in Konkan’s Alphonso belt, marked by the absence of male flowering and near-total crop failure across orchards due to extreme climate disruption. Gavakar has called for urgent intervention measures, including compensation of Rs 5,000 per tree—translating to nearly Rs 5 lakh per acre for an average plantation of 40 trees—along with a complete loan waiver across all 14 mango-growing districts of Maharashtra. He has also flagged the deepening dependence on informal credit channels, where farmers are being compelled to borrow at nearly 2 percent monthly interest from traders and moneylenders, intensifying financial vulnerability. Alongside financial relief, Gavakar has demanded strict enforcement against market exploitation and stronger pricing regulation to ensure fair remuneration for growers. In his view, the crisis represents not a seasonal agricultural setback but a structural collapse driven jointly by climate stress and market distortions, requiring immediate and decisive state intervention. A Season That Signals a Larger Agricultural Transition The crisis unfolding in Konkan’s Alphonso belt is no longer a contained agricultural setback confined to a single harvest cycle. It is increasingly being read as part of a broader transition in which climate variability is reshaping the very foundations of perennial horticulture systems. What was once governed by predictable seasonal rhythm—monsoon withdrawal, winter stability, and a tightly sequenced flowering cycle—is now being disrupted by irregular climatic behaviour. Extended rainfall windows, abrupt temperature shifts, and inconsistent post-monsoon conditions are weakening the environmental cues that perennial crops depend upon for reproductive stability. In this emerging reality, crops such as Alphonso mango, which rely on precise biological triggers for flowering and fruit set, are becoming structurally more vulnerable. The result is not just yield fluctuation, but a deeper uncertainty that now extends into agricultural planning, input investment decisions, market forecasting, and rural income stability. Konkan’s orchards, long regarded as a stable and premium horticultural ecosystem, now sit at the intersection of three converging pressures—climate stress, market distortion, and policy gaps. Together, these forces are steadily replacing traditional agricultural certainty with a more volatile and unpredictable production landscape. Within this shifting frame, the Alphonso season itself is being redefined. Once marked by anticipation and rhythm, it is increasingly shaped by unpredictability—where the outcome of an entire year is no longer governed by established seasonal expectations, but by the growing instability of climate itself. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3845/as-biofuel-demand-surges-india-faces-new-edible-oil-reality.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3845/as-biofuel-demand-surges-india-faces-new-edible-oil-reality.html Fri, 08 May 2026 15:05:36 +0530 Bhavna Shah of IVPA discusses India’s growing role in global edible oil price discovery, the risks of rising import dependence, and why productivity-led reforms are critical for long-term resilience In this exclusive interview, Bhavna Shah, Vice President of the Indian Vegetable Oil Producers’ Association, discusses how India’s edible oil sector is navigating a complex intersection of economic growth, climate risks, geopolitical disruptions, and global biofuel policies. She highlights that while India’s structural demand for edible oils remains strong, the country must focus on improving domestic oilseed productivity, strengthening supply-chain resilience, and ensuring policy stability to reduce long-term import vulnerability. The conversation also underscores India’s evolving role from being merely the world’s largest edible oil importer to becoming a major policy-sensitive market influencing global trade flows, pricing dynamics, and supply balances. India’s GDP growth is projected at 7.4 percent in FY26, with services leading the surge. How do you see this macroeconomic resilience translating into demand dynamics for edible oils, particularly in urban versus rural consumption patterns? India’s macro resilience is supporting a stable but more mature edible oil demand cycle. Unlike the post-COVID rebound phase, we are now seeing normalized consumption growth, likely below 2 percent annually on a per capita basis. Urban demand remains relatively resilient, driven by rising disposable incomes, organised retail, QSR expansion, packaged food growth, and premiumisation trends. Consumers are increasingly diversifying across sunflower, rice bran and health-positioned packaged oils, particularly in metro and Tier-1 markets. Rural demand, however, remains more sensitive to food inflation, monsoon outcomes, and real wage growth. Weak monsoons or elevated crude-linked inflation can compress discretionary consumption in rural India, impacting overall edible oil offtake. What is critical in India is the scale effect. Even a 1 kg per capita increase in annual consumption translates into roughly 1.4 million tons of additional demand. So even moderate GDP-led consumption growth creates disproportionate pressure on supply balances and import requirements. Therefore, the challenge is not demand creation — India already has structural demand strength. The challenge is ensuring supply-side elasticity keeps pace with income-driven consumption growth. You’ve described 2026/27 as a convergence year where climate stress, geopolitical shocks, and biofuel mandates collide. What specific risk transmission channels worry you most for India’s edible oil supply chain? The biggest concern is the increasing interconnectedness of risks across commodities, energy, logistics, and agriculture. We are no longer dealing with isolated disruptions; we are dealing with cascading transmission effects. The first major channel is energy-linked inflation. Crude oil volatility directly impacts freight, solvent extraction and other refining  costs, packaging materials, and edible oil prices. Geopolitical tensions in West Asia or the Black Sea immediately increase costs. Second is climate risk. Weak monsoons affect domestic oilseed output, rural incomes, reservoir levels, and input usage simultaneously. This creates both supply-side and demand-side stress coupled with disruption in supply of fertilizers.  Government of India is taking many proactive steps to kee the costs under control and ensure supplies.  Third is global biofuel diversion. Indonesia, Malaysia, the US, and ASEAN biofuel mandates are structurally tightening vegetable oil availability. When biodiesel economics become attractive, edible oils increasingly compete with fuel demand, reducing exportable surpluses. Fourth is supply chain fragility. Delays in Argentina soybean oil shipments, port disruptions, currency volatility, or insurance cost spikes can quickly destabilise import planning. Finally, inflation transmission itself is becoming more complex. India can still manage short-term supply shocks through tactical imports and duty calibration, but repeated external disruptions increase the risk of sticky food inflation feeding into broader CPI expectations. With domestic availability covering only 40–45 percent of consumption and import dependence locked at 55–60 percent, what policy levers can realistically narrow this structural gap in the medium term? There is no single silver bullet. India’s edible oil challenge is structural and requires a multi-layered strategy. First, productivity enhancement is more important than acreage expansion alone. India’s oilseed yields remain significantly below global benchmarks. Improving seed technology, irrigation efficiency, extension services, and mechanisation can deliver more sustainable gains. Second, policy consistency is critical. Frequent duty changes create uncertainty across the value chain. Long-term investment in oilseeds requires predictable pricing and trade policies coupled with a robust domestic exchanges for management of risk.  Third, the National Mission on Edible Oils must move beyond incentives toward ecosystem development — including nursery infrastructure, processing capacity, logistics, and farmer assurance mechanisms. Fourth, crop economics must improve. Farmers continue to favour maize, cotton, or other remunerative crops over oilseeds. Unless oilseed profitability becomes competitive on a risk-adjusted basis, acreage shifts will remain limited. Fifth, India should strategically diversify import origins and reduce concentration risk while simultaneously strengthening domestic crushing and storage infrastructure. In reality, import dependence may moderate gradually, but complete self-sufficiency is unlikely in the foreseeable future given India’s demographic scale and land constraints. The Oil Palm Mission aims to raise palm oil availability to 1.2 MMT by 2030. Given the slow progress in acreage expansion, especially in the North-East, do you believe this target is achievable, or is it more aspirational? The target remains ambitious. Oil palm is fundamentally a long-gestation crop with a 4–5 year maturity cycle. Therefore, policy intent today translates into output gains only several years later as seen in Malaysia, Indonesia,Thailand etc. The North-East has agro-climatic potential, but execution challenges remain significant — including fragmented landholdings, logistics limitations, processing infrastructure gaps, and farmer hesitancy around long gestation periods. Additionally, oil palm economics depend heavily on fresh fruit bunch evacuation efficiency and mill proximity. Without strong downstream infrastructure, plantation expansion alone will not deliver commercially viable outcomes. That said, India has learned from Indonesia and Malaysia that palm offers the highest oil yield per hectare among major oil crops. Strategically, it remains India’s most viable pathway to improving edible oil self-reliance. So, I would describe the 1.2 MMT target as challenging but directionally important. Even partial success materially improves India’s import vulnerability over time. Imports remain range-bound at 15–17 MMT, but the mix is shifting — soybean oil surged to 5 MMT in FY26 while palm oil declined. How does this evolving composition alter India’s bargaining power in global markets? India’s bargaining power is evolving from volume dominance to strategic balancing influence. Historically, India was primarily a price-sensitive palm oil buyer. But as import diversification increases — including higher soybean and sunflower oil participation — India gains greater sourcing flexibility and negotiating leverage and all this  drivers by consumer preferences. At the same time, the global market also becomes more aware of India’s sensitivity to inflation and policy action. Even minor duty changes or buying slowdowns in India can significantly influence global vegetable oil sentiment and price discovery. However, diversification also comes with trade-offs. Soybean oil is more exposed to weather risks in South America and biofuel policies in the Americas. Sunflower oil remains geopolitically vulnerable due to Black Sea disruptions. Palm oil still retains a structural affordability advantage for India, especially for HORECA segment   and foodservice applications. Therefore, diversification improves resilience but does not eliminate dependence. India is increasingly acting not just as the world’s largest buyer, but as the balancing market that absorbs surplus flows and stabilises global trade imbalances. MSP revisions and duty adjustments have been described as incremental and tactical. What structural reforms would you advocate to move beyond short-term inflation management toward long-term resilience? India now needs structural competitiveness, not just tactical intervention. The first reform is a national oilseed productivity mission focused on yield improvement through better genetics, precision farming, and climate-resilient agriculture. Second, India must strengthen farm-to-processing integration. Fragmentation between farmers, crushers, refiners, and downstream users reduces efficiency across the value chain. Third, investment in storage and logistics infrastructure is essential. Better warehousing and buffer mechanisms can reduce volatility during supply shocks. Fourth, policy coordination across food, feed, and fuel sectors has become increasingly important. Corn, DDGS, ethanol, and oilseeds are now economically interconnected. Silo-based policymaking is no longer effective. Fifth, India should encourage private sector participation in research, contract farming frameworks, and value-added processing. Most importantly, reforms must balance farmer remuneration with consumer affordability. India’s edible oil sector sits at the intersection of food security, inflation management, and trade policy — making it one of the most strategically sensitive agri-commodity sectors globally. India is moving from being a pure demand anchor to a policy-driven market shaper. How do you see this transition influencing global price discovery and trade flows in the next five years? India’s influence on global edible oil markets will deepen significantly over the next five years. Traditionally, India was viewed largely as a passive importer responding to global prices. That is changing. Today, India’s import duties, stock positions, procurement behaviour, and policy signals increasingly influence global trade flows and futures sentiment. As global vegetable oil balances tighten due to biofuel mandates and climate volatility, India’s role as the largest structural demand centre becomes even more critical. We are also seeing the emergence of more supply-driven trade flows. China’s soybean oil entering India after decades is an example of how global exporters are recalibrating around Indian demand dynamics. Going forward, India will likely play three simultaneous roles: * A major demand anchor, * A volatility transmission centre, * A policy-sensitive price discovery market. In many ways, India is becoming the balancing mechanism of the global vegetable oil economy. Biofuel mandates are structurally tightening global palm oil supply. How should India balance its energy security ambitions with the unintended consequences for edible oil inflation? This is one of the most important policy balancing acts ahead. Globally, biofuel mandates are no longer cyclical — they are structural. Indonesia, Malaysia, the US, and ASEAN economies are increasingly diverting vegetable oils toward energy applications. India also has legitimate energy security goals, particularly around ethanol blending and renewable fuels. However, India’s edible oil deficit creates a different economic reality compared to producer nations. Therefore, India must adopt a calibrated approach. Food security and inflation stability cannot be compromised in pursuit of aggressive biofuel targets. The focus should be on diversified feedstocks — including used cooking oil, agri-residue, second-generation biofuels, and non-food energy pathways — rather than excessive dependence on edible oils. Equally important is ecosystem alignment. India’s earlier biodiesel experience showed that policy ambition without supply chain viability can leave capacity stranded. The ideal approach is balanced sequencing — scaling energy transition goals while ensuring edible oil affordability, farmer viability, and supply security remain protected. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3807/bayer-foundations-kyra-constanze-pauly-on-why-blended-finance-could-reshape-global-food-systems.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3807/bayer-foundations-kyra-constanze-pauly-on-why-blended-finance-could-reshape-global-food-systems.html Mon, 04 May 2026 16:16:48 +0530 Exclusive AgroSpectrum interview with Kyra Constanze Pauly, Managing Director of Bayer Foundation, on catalytic capital, smallholder resilience, and the new Bayer Foundation–UNCDF investment push in African agri-food markets The conversation comes as Bayer Foundation and United Nations Capital Development Fund announced the inaugural investments under the Food Systems Innovation Finance Facility (FSIFF), extending two local currency loans of $500,000 each to Omia Agribusiness in Uganda and SokoFresh in Kenya to expand farmer services, reduce food loss, improve cold storage infrastructure, and strengthen market access for smallholders. Kyra highlighted that the initiative reflects a broader shift beyond traditional grant-based development models toward blended finance structures that combine philanthropic capital with market-compatible instruments to drive long-term agricultural resilience, farmer incomes, and food-system sustainability. As concessional funding declines globally, how does Bayer Foundation justify deploying catalytic capital in ways that may blur the line between philanthropy and market-making?  Effective and inclusive markets are a good thing. When markets work better, they deliver tangible benefits for people on the ground – from more reliable access to nutritious food to stronger livelihoods for smallholder farmers and more resilient local economies.  In many low- and middle‑income countries, particularly in food systems, promising solutions fail to scale because early risks are too high, and traditional funding falls short. This is where we see a clear role for catalytic philanthropic capital. By deploying it thoughtfully, we can help de‑risk early innovation, unlock additional capital, and ensure that limited philanthropic resources achieve greater, longer‑lasting impact.  Working with partners like the United Nations Capital Development Fund, who combine deep development expertise with fair and responsible financial instruments, helps us keep social impact firmly at the center. Finance, for us, is not an end in itself. It is a practical tool to leverage resources, help markets serve people better, and create durable change where purely grant‑based approaches or commercial capital alone are insufficient.  In partnering with United Nations Capital Development Fund, what structural advantage does this model have over traditional grant-based development approaches in actually transforming food systems?  Grant‑based support has an important role and remains essential, especially at very early stages or in fragile contexts. At the same time, on its own, it has often proven insufficient to sustain or scale transformation in food systems over the long term. Social entrepreneurs – who are among the key changemakers we support – need access to the full spectrum of capital, from grants to loans and equity. In low‑ and middle‑income countries, access to capital and opportunity to build equity remains limited, or available only under unfavorable conditions.  Our partnership with the United Nations Capital Development Fund allows us to address this gap. By combining grants with responsible, market‑compatible financial instruments, we can focus not just on funding individual projects, but on improving how food systems work for smallholder farmers and underserved communities more structurally.  UNCDF’s rigorous approach, strong alignment with the international agreed Sustainable Development Goals, and deep on‑the‑ground expertise help ensure that capital responds to real needs and contributes to lasting, system‑level change. Importantly, UNCDF also brings credibility as a trusted global institution and acts as a convener – mobilizing additional public and private capital beyond our initial contribution. This enables impact to go further than traditional, project‑based grants alone, while strengthening markets and livelihoods in a responsible and inclusive way. The FSIFF aims to “crowd in” private capital – what specific risk-return signals must be proven before institutional investors take these markets seriously?  UNCDF absorbs early-stage risk to incentivize investment and crowd-in private capital into underserved markets and deliver concrete development results for people, small businesses, and vulnerable communities.   Institutional investors will step in, when they see that markets are built on real, everyday value – for farmers, businesses, and food systems. That means solutions genuinely solve problems on the ground, can operate reliably, and continue to deliver benefits over time. For Bayer Foundation, the most important signal is that financial sustainability supports social impact: better incomes for farmers, population food security, less food loss, and stronger food systems resilience. When impact is real and lasting, financial confidence follows.  Investments like Omia and SokoFresh target systemic inefficiencies – how do you ensure these interventions create durable market infrastructure rather than isolated success stories?  We collaborate with UNCDF, whose rigorous due‑diligence process and strong focus on SDG impact help ensure that investments address real systemic gaps rather than short‑term opportunities. Bayer Foundation, UNCDF and its partners in the UN ecosystem support the ventures beyond granting loans through the facility. We facilitate the link of the ventures to other local partners which helps them develop true local ecosystems. This combination helps ensure that investments like Omia and SokoFresh strengthen market infrastructure and create lasting benefits for smallholder farmers and food systems, well beyond a single success story.  How do you rigorously measure impact in complex ecosystems where outcomes are influenced by multiple external variables?  We focus on whether our interventions are contributing to real improvements in farmers’ lives and local food systems. That means tracking practical indicators like income increase and reduced losses over time and grounding these insights in feedback from partners working closely with farming communities. Impact for us is about long‑term resilience, not short‑term attribution.  To measure results with FSIFF, companies report on impact annually as part of portfolio management, including, for example, data points on job creation and earnings of smallholder farmers and changes in market access. A successful project sees a return of capital, which enables recycling of funds into more impactful investments and improved food security and more resilient livelihoods in underserved communities.  To what extent should philanthropic capital tolerate underperformance org. failure in fragile, last-mile economies?  Philanthropic capital bears 100 per cent risk anyway, because its purpose is to be given away for free. So, in principle a higher risk can be tolerated. Still, the FSIFF is thoroughly assessing each venture’s financial health and has return expectations, also to sustain and grow the loan facility over time. Here, the facility’s pipeline coming from the wider UN ecosystem and partner organizations like Bayer Foundation helps to manage risk.   Does the use of concessional finance risk distorting local markets, or is it essential to correcting structural inequities that traditional finance ignores?  Concessional finance plays an important role where markets don’t yet work for everyone. When used thoughtfully, it helps correct structural inequalities and gives smallholder farmers and local enterprises a fair chance to participate. The goal is always to support markets that can eventually function on their own – not to replace them and to encourage commercial investment.  Looking ahead, do you see blended finance vehicles like FSIFF becoming dominant or remaining niche?  Blended finance is an important tool that helps bridge the gap between philanthropy and private investment, especially where risks are high and impact potential is strong. Through the Food Systems Innovation Finance Facility (FSIFF), we use this approach to support solutions that can grow, attract additional capital, and create lasting benefits for smallholder farmers and food systems. Used responsibly, blended finance enables impact‑driven solutions to scale and endure, while keeping social impact clearly at the center. We also see growing momentum in working together with a wide range of partners – from public institutions to private and philanthropic actors – to bring the right kinds of support together and help impact‑driven solutions succeed.  --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3805/whats-redefining-agri-tech-ai-powered-operational-infrastructure-for-global-risk-intelligence-for-one.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3805/whats-redefining-agri-tech-ai-powered-operational-infrastructure-for-global-risk-intelligence-for-one.html Thu, 30 Apr 2026 17:35:59 +0530 Navneet Ravikar, CMD, LeadsConnect Services Pvt. Ltd. and CEO, BL Agro, positions ICCRI and KEDAR–PARVATI In an exclusive interview with AgroSpectrum, Navneet Ravikar, Chairman & Managing Director of LeadsConnect Services Pvt. Ltd. and CEO of BL Agro, positions ICCRI and KEDAR–PARVATI as operational intelligence infrastructure rather than traditional dashboards, integrating satellite, financial, and AI-driven analytics for real-time, parcel-level risk insights. He highlights their role as scalable, geography-agnostic systems capable of transforming agricultural risk pricing, governance, and climate resilience across sectors.  Ravikar underscores the Indo–Brazil agri corridor as a strategic South–South collaboration to co-develop AI tailored to tropical agriculture, offering an alternative to Western-centric models. He adds that platforms like ICCRI are poised to evolve into hybrid public digital infrastructure, supporting national agricultural systems while maintaining strong data sovereignty and farmer-centric governance. You’ve positioned ICCRI and KEDAR–PARVATI as “applied AI at planet scale.” What  differentiates your model from traditional agri-tech dashboards — and how does it  function as critical infrastructure rather than just analytics software? Our Integrated Command Centre for Risk Intelligence (ICCRI)- a live, in-house command centre and  the recently launched KEDAR–PARVATI platform represent far more than visual dashboards — they are operational intelligence architectures designed for actionable insights, live  demonstrations of proprietary intelligence frameworks. Traditional agri-tech dashboards primarily aggregate and display historical indicators. In  contrast, ICCRI, KEDAR–PARVATI and many more products like these, integrate satellite  intelligence, hyperlocal analytics, climate and hazard modelling, crop phenomics, actuarial  analytics, financial risk engines, and AI-driven modelling frameworks into a unified  architecture capable of generating parcel-level insights at massive scale. Importantly, the platform is already harbouring Operational geoportals including dedicated  AgriFinTech products such as AGRANI and Maatri, which enable credit scoring, underwriting  analytics, hotspot detection, portfolio monitoring, and financial risk intelligence for banks and  financial institutions, and other products including PixStack, DEVI–Saptashati, and Kedar–Parvati.  These are not pilot concepts — they are deployed frameworks aligned with ongoing central and  state government engagements and institutional partnerships. What truly differentiates KEDAR–PARVATI KEDAR (Knowledge Engineering & Deviation Analytics for Risk Intelligence) and PARVATI (Phenomics Analytics & Risk Value Assessment for Transferring  Intelligence) together form is that it is geography-agnostic and domain-agnostic by design. The  architecture is built to seamlessly transition across domains — from agriculture to disaster risk,  from crop analytics to actuarial modelling — without dependence on massive retraining datasets.  It is capable of generating over a billion land-parcel level insights in a single continuous rendering  cycle, supported by dynamic calibration frameworks. This makes ICCRI closer to national digital infrastructure than an analytics tool. Governments  can use it for risk governance and climate resilience planning; financial institutions for capital  allocation and exposure mapping; insurers for parametric design; and agribusinesses for value chain optimisation. In essence, we are shifting agriculture from retrospective reporting to predictive, hyperlocal,  intelligence-driven risk mitigation at scale — positioning ICCRI and KEDAR–PARVATI as  foundational infrastructure for resilient agricultural economies. The launch coincided with Brazil’s high-level state visit. How strategic is the Indo-Brazil  agri corridor in your global vision, and can South–South AI collaboration become a  counterweight to Western-dominated agri platforms? The timing of ICCRI and KEDAR–PARVATI’s launch during Brazil’s state visit reflects the deep  strategic alignment between India and Brazil in shaping technology-led agrarian transformation. Both countries share remarkably similar agricultural landscapes — vast tropical agro-ecologies,  climate variability, and a large base of small and medium farmers who require precision yet  affordable solutions. The structural similarities in land systems and farmer demographics make  the Indo–Brazil agri corridor not just symbolic, but operationally logical. This is a strong example of South–South collaboration, where institutions co-develop AI systems  tailored to tropical agriculture and inclusive growth — rather than importing models designed  primarily for large-scale industrial farming in temperate geographies. As rightly highlighted by Hon’ble Minister of Agrarian Development and Family Farming, Brazil, Mr. Paulo Teixeira, during  his visit to our office for the launch, Brazil requires scalable risk intelligence and value-chain  solutions of this nature — and we are committed to building and deploying them jointly. By co-creating these platforms, we are not merely strengthening bilateral ties; we are contributing  to an alternative global model of AI-enabled agricultural resilience rooted in shared realities of  the Global South. Risk intelligence is fast becoming the backbone of agricultural finance. How does real time climate, crop and financial modelling change how banks, insurers, and governments  price agricultural risk? Real-time risk intelligence transforms risk from a reactive cost to a quantifiable variable that can  be actively managed. By integrating climate forecasts, yield projections, market volatility signals,  and credit scoring, underwriting analytics, hotspot detection, portfolio monitoring, and financial  risk intelligence indicators, banks and insurers can price risk with a much higher degree of  precision, underwritten by data rather than broad heuristics. This enables institutions to extend  credit and insurance with better confidence, reduce default rates, and design products that are  equitable for smallholders. Governments can leverage the same analytics for disaster response,  targeted subsidies, and climate adaptation planning. You integrate satellite intelligence, field analytics, financial modeling, and LLM/SLM  modules into one architecture. What governance and validation frameworks ensure that  AI-driven recommendations remain accurate, unbiased, and farmer-centric? Our governance approach is built on transparent model validation, human-in-the-loop  oversight, and continuous field calibration. We have multilayered feedback mechanisms where  field level outcomes feed back into model refinement; AI outputs are benchmarked against  independent ground truth data with strong accuracy; and agricultural experts continuously  review recommendation sets to ensure they are actionable and context relevant. Importantly, we  adhere to strict data governance standards so that actionable insights improve outcomes without  replacing domain expertise or farmer judgment. Agriculture contributes significantly to GDP but remains vulnerable to climate volatility.  Can AI meaningfully de-risk farming at scale—or does it simply make uncertainty more  measurable? AI’s strength is that it reduces uncertainty by quantifying it. By converging climatic data with  crop, soil, and economic variables, AI does not eliminate risk — but it significantly sharpens  visibility into risk patterns at scale. This enables stakeholders to take preventative and adaptive  actions rather than reactive ones. In practice, this leads to earlier drought warnings, optimized  input application, better credit decisions, and more robust supply chain planning — all of which  cumulatively reduce systemic vulnerabilities. Data sovereignty is emerging as a geopolitical issue. As you expand into Brazil and  potentially other regions, who owns the agricultural data generated on your platforms — the farmer, the state, or the enterprise? Data sovereignty is central to our architecture. Farmers and sovereign institutions retain  ownership rights of their data — the enterprise acts as a custodian tasked with secure  processing and analytics. This means: Data collected from farms remains under farmer control. Aggregated and anonymized insights can be used by governments for public planning in various project we partner with. Enterprises can operationalize analytics, but access and sharing are governed by  consent, compliance, and privacy safeguards. This framework aligns ethical stewardship with utility. The corridor begins with the cashew value chain in collaboration with EMBRAPA. Why  start with cashew, and how does value-chain digitization—from plantation science to  structured markets —create a replicable global model? Cashew Pulp (Cashew Apple) offers a compelling entry point because it has high latent value  and complex systemic inefficiencies, especially in fiber utilization — a challenge that  technology can directly address. Both India and Brazil are among the world’s largest cashew  producers, yet nearly 80–85% of the cashew apple pulp produced alongside the nut in India  goes to waste. This represents a massive untapped bio-economic opportunity. We identified this as a critical gap — particularly in India — where there is currently no large scale technological implementation focused on upcycling cashew apple fibre into high value food products. Through our collaboration with EMBRAPA and Amazonika Mundi, we aim  to bring proven Brazilian food-processing technology and plantation science expertise to India,  effectively converting waste into structured value. Our 360° model integrates plantation science, AI-enabled farm advisory, value-chain analytics,  financial services, sustainable processing through patented fibre technology, and structured  market integration. By digitizing and linking every node — from farm to processing to markets — we are building a full-stack, intelligence-driven value chain. What makes this globally relevant is its replicability. Once a traditionally inefficient commodity  ecosystem is digitized and structurally optimized, the same architecture can be extended to other  crops and geographies. Cashew is not just the starting point — it is the proof of concept for a  scalable, waste-to-wealth, AI-enabled agro-industrial model. Looking toward 2047 and beyond, do you see AI-enabled command centers like ICCRI  becoming public digital infrastructure embedded within national agricultural systems — or remaining enterprise-led innovation engines driving private-sector transformation? We envision a hybrid future where AI-enabled command centres like ICCRI are ready to become  part of the national agricultural digital backbone, interoperable with public data ecosystems  and accessible to multiple stakeholders — while enterprise innovation continues to drive speed,  scale, and domain depth. ICCRI is architected to seamlessly align with Government of India initiatives such as Agri Stack  and VISTAAR, which aim to create structured digital public infrastructure for agriculture. Our  platform complements further to these frameworks by adding hyperlocal risk intelligence,  financial analytics, climate modelling, and parcel-level insights that can strengthen public policy  planning, targeted subsidy design, crop insurance frameworks, and credit delivery systems. The objective is not to position enterprise systems outside public infrastructure, but to ensure  interoperability, data sovereignty, and transparent governance, where private innovation  enhances national capability. By 2047 and beyond, we see such command centres functioning as  trusted digital infrastructure — enabling resilient, intelligence-driven agricultural economies at  scale. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3779/eudr-is-binary-but-cocoa-supply-chains-are-not-ihwan-rafina-on-future-of-compliance.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3779/eudr-is-binary-but-cocoa-supply-chains-are-not-ihwan-rafina-on-future-of-compliance.html Wed, 29 Apr 2026 15:26:11 +0530 MosaiX Senior Director says fragmented supply chains and weak data governance pose deeper challenges than technology alone In an exclusive interaction with AgroSpectrum, Ihwan Rafina discusses how the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) is reshaping global cocoa supply chains and exposing the structural complexities of compliance in producer countries like Ecuador. The interview examines the critical gaps in land tenure, traceability, and data governance that continue to challenge smallholder-driven cocoa economies despite rapid advances in digital compliance systems. Rafina also highlights the importance of moving beyond simplistic deforestation narratives toward plot-level, evidence-based due diligence models that can balance environmental accountability with on-ground socio-economic realities. Addressing the risks of supplier exclusion, he argues for remediation-focused sustainability frameworks that enable non-compliant producers to transition toward acceptable standards rather than being permanently shut out of global markets. The conversation further explores how EUDR may create a more segmented global cocoa trade, positioning Ecuador as a potentially strong but execution-sensitive origin in the emerging hierarchy of compliant suppliers. Structural Risk vs Regulatory Threshold The European Union Deforestation Regulation sets a binary compliance bar—deforestation-free or not. Yet Ecuador’s cocoa economy operates in shades of informality. How do you reconcile this mismatch between regulatory rigidity and on-ground complexity? EUDR is binary at the border, but cocoa systems are not. The practical reconciliation is to treat compliance as a risk-segmentation exercise, not a moral yes/no judgment: plots and suppliers that are already traceable and legally documented move first, while higher-risk segments need phased remediation, targeted support, and temporary market separation. That is especially relevant in Ecuador, where cocoa is highly smallholder-based and the sector is still building national traceability and due-diligence capacity. Land Tenure Informality as a Systemic Bottleneck With nearly 92 per cent of cocoa land unregistered, is land tenure the single largest constraint to EUDR compliance, or are we underestimating other risks like fragmented supply chains and data integrity? Land tenure is a major bottleneck, but probably not the only or even always the single largest one. The “92 per cent unregistered” figure is based on the desktop analysis from a public database, so it's a precautionary approach. In practice, tenure interacts with two other constraints that are just as decisive under EUDR: fragmented supply chains and weak data governance. Ecuador’s readiness work has focused not only on legality, but also on traceability design, governance mechanisms, and due-diligence tools, which suggests the constraint is systemic rather than purely cadastral. Traceability: technology vs. reality EUDR assumes plot-level geolocation and traceability at scale. In a smallholder-dominated ecosystem, how feasible is full-stack traceability, and where do current digital solutions fall short—data capture, verification, or interoperability? Full-stack traceability is feasible for organised suppliers, cooperatives, and better-structured exporters, but much harder across atomised intermediated trade. EUDR requires geolocation, including GPS points for plots under 4 hectares and polygons above 4 hectares, plus legality checks and forest/protected-area overlays. Ecuador has pilots moving in that direction, but current gaps are usually not the technology itself, they are field data capture quality, verification cost, and interoperability between trader, exporter, and public systems. It’s a people issue as much as a technology one. To achieve full traceability, you need people on the ground to verify it, and that’s a huge undertaking that will take time and resource. Deforestation attribution complexity Your findings suggest cocoa is not the primary driver of large-scale deforestation, yet it remains exposed to compliance risks. How should companies approach deforestation attribution, especially in landscapes with overlapping land-use histories? Companies should avoid simplistic commodity blame and instead use plot-based, time-bound attribution. Cocoa in Ecuador is often linked to agroforestry systems and is not always the main driver of large-scale forest conversion, but EUDR exposure still exists where farm boundaries intersect post-2020 forest loss or unclear land-use histories. So the right question is not “is cocoa the main driver nationally?” but “can this specific plot be evidenced as deforestation-free and legal since the cutoff date?”. The approach needs to be focused on gathering and verifying this evidence. Protected area overlaps and legal ambiguity The overlap of cocoa plots with protected reserves raises difficult questions. In cases where livelihoods and legality collide, how should stakeholders navigate grey zones between conservation policy and socio-economic reality? Where cocoa overlaps with protected or restricted areas, companies should separate legal compliance from livelihood response. EUDR does not create an exception for socio-economic hardship, so non-compliant supply cannot simply be waved through. But the answer should not be exclusion only, it should combine legal screening, case-by-case remediation pathways, support for transition, and engagement with local authorities where boundaries, rights, or historic occupation are contested. For multinationals operating beyond Europe, excluding non-compliant suppliers isn’t the only option – and from a sustainability perspective, exclusion can be counterproductive. The non-compliant cocoa doesn’t disappear, it simply ends up in less regulated markets.While the EUDR does not have a path to redemption, having a mechanism for remediation built into NDPE policies that allows for suppliers to be brought back into the fold once they have met the required standards is one of the best ways to drive impact. These suppliers can then be included in non-EU supply chains. Due diligence as capability, not compliance Most companies treat due diligence as a reporting exercise. Your framework suggests a shift toward operational capability. What does it take to move from static compliance checklists to dynamic, continuously auditable systems? The shift is from static documentation to an operating system: continuous supplier onboarding, geodata validation, risk scoring, protected-area and deforestation overlays, document management, incident handling, and audit trails. Ecuador’s recent EUDR readiness work is useful precisely because it tested national risk assessment, due-diligence guidance, and pilot tools in real conditions. That is the right direction, compliance as an ongoing capability, not a one-off file. Market access and competitive realignment Do you see EUDR creating a two-tier global cocoa market—where compliant origins gain preferential access and others are structurally excluded? Where does Ecuador sit in that emerging hierarchy? Yes, EUDR is likely to create a more segmented cocoa market. Origins and supply sheds with stronger organisation, cleaner traceability, and better legality evidence will gain faster access to EU buyers, while others risk discounting or diversion to less regulated markets. Ecuador is relatively well positioned compared with many origins because it has a strong export sector, active EUDR readiness programmes, and a large agroforestry cocoa base, but that advantage is conditional on execution at farmer and intermediary level. From Ecuador to global replicability To what extent are the risks identified in Ecuador representative of other cocoa-producing regions like West Africa or Southeast Asia? What lessons can be generalized versus those that remain highly context-specific? Ecuador’s risks are partly generalisable and partly unique. The general lessons, smallholder fragmentation, traceability cost, legality gaps, and the need for interoperable systems, are highly relevant to West Africa and Southeast Asia. The context-specific part is Ecuador’s stronger agroforestry profile and different deforestation dynamics compared with frontier expansion landscapes elsewhere. So Ecuador is a useful model for systems design, but not a one-to-one template for all cocoa origins. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agropsectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3761/where-paint-protects-pollinators.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3761/where-paint-protects-pollinators.html Mon, 27 Apr 2026 12:13:12 +0530 Mark Titus shares how Nippon Paint India is turning coatings expertise into a tool for ecological and economic impact In an exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Mark Titus, President – Decorative Coatings Business at Nippon Paint India, shares how the company’s foray into apiculture goes beyond diversification to reflect a purpose-driven, ESG-led innovation strategy. He highlights how eco-friendly, GreenPro-certified coatings are being adapted to ensure hive durability while safeguarding bee health—an uncommon intersection of material science and biodiversity. Emphasizing measurable impact, Titus points to metrics like colony health, hive longevity, and farmer income uplift as key indicators of success. He underscores that the initiative is “impact-first but not impact-only,” with a long-term vision to build a scalable, self-sustaining ecosystem through strong partnerships and rural engagement. This move takes Nippon Paint into apiculture—far outside traditional coatings demand. How do you frame this internally: adjacent market expansion, ESG-led innovation, or a long-term rural strategy bet? We see our association with Humble Bee as a natural adjacency, driven by both purpose and capability. While it sits outside traditional coatings demand, it meaningfully leverages our core strengths in protective and sustainable coatings. For us, this is also an ESG-led innovation with strong long-term potential for rural impact. It’s less about diversification for scale, and more about extending our relevance into ecosystems where durability and sustainability truly matter. Many companies talk sustainability; few quantify it. What hard metrics will define success here - colony health, hive longevity, farmer income uplift, or something else entirely? Sustainability and responsible innovation are deeply embedded in Nippon Paint’s DNA. Guided by our ESG framework, we are committed to developing solutions that not only deliver performance but also create measurable environmental and social value. This initiative is a strong reflection of that approach where businesses, communities, and ecosystems grow together. From an ESG standpoint, success will be defined through clear metrics such as colony health and bee retention rates (Environmental), hive longevity and durability (Environmental), and improvements in honey yield and farmer income (Social). Coatings for beehives introduce a completely different performance benchmark—biological compatibility. What were the toughest technical trade-offs in ensuring durability without compromising bee health? At Nippon Paint India, eco-friendly, low to zero-VOC formulations have always been integral to our portfolio, and we are among the few in the industry to offer GreenPro-certified products - an eco-label awarded by the Confederation of Indian Industry (CII) that recognises products meeting stringent environmental and sustainability standards across their lifecycle. We have leveraged our existing formulation of paints that are eco-friendly and highly durable to withstand harsh weather conditions - to coat the hives. Its proven durability against extreme climates and moisture make it an ideal solution, while ensuring the highest standards of environmental safety. While traditional coatings are primarily designed for protection, in this case, we also had to ensure zero harmful emissions and no disruption to bee behavior or their habitat - something we were able to achieve seamlessly with our eco-friendly, GreenPro-certified product. Reaching first-generation women farmers and tribal communities is notoriously difficult. Does Nippon Paint plan to build new distribution channels, or will this rely entirely on partners like Humble Bee? At Nippon Paint India, initiatives like NShakti - our pioneering program that empowers women to become professional painters - reflect our strong commitment to enabling self-reliance among women. This shared vision of empowerment makes it even more relevant for us to support such novel initiatives. Enabling sustainable livelihood opportunities for tribal women is a natural extension of this commitment.We also recognize that last-mile access is critical, especially when engaging with first-generation women farmers and tribal communities. At this stage, our approach is entirely partnership-led - working closely with organizations like Humble Bee that bring deep community connect and on-ground expertise.The focus is on trust-led adoption, not just reach. We are keen to collaborate with like-minded partners who share our vision, as we collectively work towards building a more sustainable and inclusive ecosystem for livelihoods. Is this initiative designed to become a self-sustaining business line, or will it remain impact-first with limited margin expectations? Where do you draw the line between profitability and purpose? This initiative is impact-first but not impact-only. Our goal is to build a self-sustaining model over time. In the early stages, the priority was on ecosystem building and demonstrating proof of impact and, currently, we are supporting this through a subsidized approach. Over the long term, we expect the model to achieve viability through scale and operational efficiencies. For us, profitability and purpose are not mutually exclusive - they must converge to create sustainable, long-term value. Low-VOC, eco-friendly coatings are not proprietary in isolation. What makes this model defensible—is it the formulation, the ecosystem partnerships, or early-mover advantage in apiculture infrastructure? While low-VOC coatings in themselves are not unique, what is far more difficult to replicate is the ecosystem approach. Our GreenPro certification gives us a clear edge, reinforcing the environmental credibility of our products. Additionally, our partnership-led model, combined with early on-ground learnings, enables us to build deep insights and create a strong first-mover advantage in this space.At its core, this initiative is driven by a shared vision to build a sustainable ecosystem through innovation aligned with Nippon Paint’s core DNA. The new-age beehive model by Humble Bee makes this partnership seamless, enabling a differentiated approach and laying the foundation for long-term impact. Does this signal a broader ambition for Nippon Paint India to move into agri-linked applications—storage, irrigation infrastructure, rural housing—or is apiculture a one-off experiment? This is certainly a strategic learning ground for us, reinforcing how coatings can play a meaningful role in protecting infrastructure beyond urban environments. Our approach remains tightly aligned to the relevance of this initiative. We will scale thoughtfully - guided by proven impact and clear outcomes, rather than pursuing expansion into new areas. For us, this is not about entering a new category; it’s about applying our expertise where it can create the most meaningful and lasting impact. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3705/ai-is-rewiring-future-of-energy-crops-ofer-haviv-ceo-evogene.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3705/ai-is-rewiring-future-of-energy-crops-ofer-haviv-ceo-evogene.html Mon, 20 Apr 2026 14:07:17 +0530 Gene-to-trait mapping and predictive breeding are accelerating the path to high-yield, climate-resilient castor varieties AgroSpectrum interview, Ofer Haviv, CEO Casterra ( subsidiary of Evogene ), outlines how castor oil is poised to transition from a niche industrial input to a scalable biofuel feedstock through advances in genetics, mechanization, and precision agronomy. He argues that aligning cost structures with major crops like soybean and palm—while avoiding food-versus-fuel conflicts—positions castor as a strategic alternative in a tightening regulatory landscape. Haviv emphasizes Brazil’s pivotal role, where castor can function as a second crop alongside soy, improving land efficiency without displacing food production. Looking ahead, he sees castor anchoring a broader bio-based economy, extending beyond fuels into chemicals and materials as supply scales and costs decline. From Niche to Scale Castor oil has traditionally been a high-value, niche industrial feedstock—what structural shifts in cost, yield, or demand are necessary to transform it into a globally scalable biofuel solution? Castor oil has historically occupied a niche position as a high-value industrial feedstock, largely due to limited scalability, fragmented cultivation practices, and relatively high production costs. Transitioning castor into a globally viable biofuel solution requires a fundamental structural shift across the value chain. This includes a significant reduction in cost per ton through yield improvement and large-scale adoption of modern agricultural practices. High-performance hybrid seed genetics must be deployed to ensure uniformity, disease resistance, and yield optimization across diverse geographies. Alongside this, tailored mechanization solutions—designed specifically for castor’s unique plant architecture—are critical to reducing dependency on manual labor and increasing operational efficiency. Advanced agronomic expertise, supported by precision agriculture tools and data-driven decision-making, further enhances productivity. Collectively, these shifts can reposition castor from a fragmented specialty crop into a scalable, globally traded commodity suitable for energy markets. Economics of Biofuel Feedstocks Given the historically tight margins in biofuels, how does Casterra’s model ensure that castor oil can compete economically with established feedstocks like soybean, palm, or corn-based inputs? The economic viability of biofuel feedstocks has historically been constrained by tight margins and competition with low-cost, high-volume crops such as soybean, palm, and corn. Casterra’s model addresses this challenge by integrating advanced genetics with optimized cultivation protocols, thereby lowering production costs and improving yield consistency. This approach aims to bring castor oil pricing in line with conventional feedstocks, making it a competitive alternative. Importantly, unlike soybean and corn—which are edible and subject to increasing regulatory scrutiny due to food-versus-fuel concerns—castor is a non-edible crop. Global regulatory trends are increasingly discouraging the use of food crops in biofuel production to safeguard food security and reduce environmental pressures. This regulatory tailwind strengthens castor’s positioning as a sustainable and compliant feedstock, enhancing its long-term economic attractiveness in global biofuel markets. Mechanization Breakthrough Your trials emphasize mechanized farming—how critical is mechanization in unlocking castor’s commercial viability, and what barriers still exist for adoption at scale in emerging markets? Mechanization is a cornerstone in unlocking the commercial viability of castor cultivation at scale. As agricultural labor becomes increasingly scarce and expensive, reliance on manual harvesting and planting methods is no longer sustainable. Mechanization enables uniform planting, efficient harvesting, and reduced operational costs, all of which are essential for transforming castor into a commodity crop. Casterra has proactively addressed this need by forming strategic partnerships with leading agricultural machinery providers to develop and adapt equipment suited for castor farming. However, adoption barriers persist, particularly in emerging markets where capital constraints, lack of technical expertise, and limited access to maintenance infrastructure hinder widespread mechanization. To overcome these challenges, scalable solutions such as cooperative farming models, equipment-sharing systems, and service-based mechanization offerings are being explored. These approaches can democratize access to technology and accelerate adoption across smallholder farming communities. Climate and Land Use Trade-offs As biofuel demand rises, how do you address concerns around land-use competition between energy crops and food production, particularly in regions like Brazil? One of the critical concerns in scaling biofuel crops is the potential competition with food production for arable land, especially in major agricultural regions like Brazil. Castor offers a compelling solution through its ability to function as a complementary crop rather than a competing one. It can be cultivated as a second crop following soybean harvest, utilizing residual soil moisture and the tail end of the rainy season. This dual-cropping system maximizes land productivity without displacing primary food crops. Furthermore, castor has demonstrated agronomic benefits in crop rotation systems, including improved soil health and enhanced soybean yields in subsequent planting cycles. Its relatively low water requirements and adaptability to marginal conditions further reduce pressure on critical resources. As a result, castor not only avoids land-use conflicts but actively contributes to more sustainable and efficient agricultural systems. AI-Driven Agriculture Meets Energy Transition How does Evogene Ltd. leverage its ChemPass AI platform to accelerate not just pharmaceutical discovery, but also the development of next-generation agricultural inputs and energy crops? Evogene Ltd. leverages its proprietary computational platform, ChemPass AI, to accelerate the development of next-generation agricultural inputs and energy crops. This platform enables the precise linkage of genes to desired traits, significantly shortening the breeding cycle and improving the accuracy of trait selection. By utilizing genetic markers and advanced predictive models, Evogene can rapidly develop castor varieties with enhanced yield, stress tolerance, and oil content. This technological edge not only benefits pharmaceutical and chemical discovery but also plays a pivotal role in advancing sustainable agriculture and energy solutions. The integration of AI into crop development represents a paradigm shift, allowing for faster innovation cycles and more resilient crop systems tailored to evolving environmental and market demands. Resilience vs. Input Dependency Casterra highlights low-input cultivation—does this position castor as a more resilient crop in an era of volatile fertilizer and energy prices, and could that become its defining competitive advantage? Castor’s agronomic profile positions it as a highly resilient crop in an era marked by volatile input costs, including fertilizers, water, and energy. Unlike many conventional crops, castor can achieve stable yields with relatively low input requirements. It thrives across a wide range of climatic conditions and does not demand intensive irrigation or expensive chemical treatments. This low-input dependency not only reduces production costs but also minimizes exposure to market fluctuations in agricultural inputs. As sustainability becomes a central criterion in both agriculture and energy sectors, castor’s resilience and resource efficiency could emerge as its defining competitive advantages. These characteristics make it particularly suitable for cultivation in regions facing climate variability and resource constraints, further supporting its scalability as a biofuel feedstock. Commercialization Strategy With plans to expand in Brazil, what does a successful go-to-market strategy look like—are partnerships with local producers enough, or will vertical integration be necessary to control the value chain? Casterra’s commercialization strategy in Brazil is built on a collaborative ecosystem rather than a vertically integrated model. The company focuses on providing advanced genetics and agronomic know-how while partnering with local farmers and oil crushers to build a robust supply chain. Farmers play a critical role in scaling cultivation, while crushers act as off-takers, ensuring market linkage and processing capacity. This distributed model allows for rapid expansion without the capital intensity associated with full vertical integration. By fostering strong partnerships across the value chain, Casterra can leverage local expertise, infrastructure, and networks to accelerate adoption. The strategy emphasizes scalability, flexibility, and shared value creation, which are essential for establishing a sustainable and competitive castor oil industry in Brazil and beyond. Future of Bio-Based Economies Looking ahead a decade, do you see castor oil primarily as a biofuel feedstock, or as part of a broader shift toward bio-based industrial systems where energy, materials, and chemicals converge? Looking ahead, the role of castor oil is likely to extend far beyond biofuels, becoming a key component in a broader bio-based industrial ecosystem. As production scales and costs decline, castor oil could serve as a versatile feedstock for a wide range of applications, including bio-based chemicals, advanced materials, lubricants, and specialty polymers. This convergence of energy, materials, and chemicals reflects a larger transition toward integrated bio-based economies, where renewable biological resources replace fossil-based inputs across multiple industries. If castor achieves the envisioned scale and cost efficiency, it has the potential to become a foundational crop in this transformation, supporting sustainable industrial growth while reducing environmental impact. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3699/turning-bamboo-into-business-scaling-green-livelihoods-across-india.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3699/turning-bamboo-into-business-scaling-green-livelihoods-across-india.html Fri, 17 Apr 2026 13:39:29 +0530 Neju George Abraham shares how Industree Foundation is building globally competitive, climate-positive supply chains In an exclusive interaction with AgroSpectrum, Neju George Abraham, CEO of Industree Foundation, outlines a bold vision for scaling women-led, climate-resilient livelihoods through nature-based value chains. He emphasizes that women are not beneficiaries but central economic actors, driving both sustainability and commercial viability in sectors such as bamboo and natural fibres. Drawing on two decades of experience, Abraham highlights how structured, traceable supply chains and producer-owned enterprises are unlocking market access while delivering measurable environmental and social impact. He also underscores persistent gaps in climate finance, market pricing, and policy implementation that continue to limit the full potential of these enterprises. Looking ahead, he positions women-led, nature-based enterprises as core infrastructure for India’s climate and economic future, rather than a niche sustainability solution. You often speak about building “green livelihoods at scale.” What’s the business case for putting women at the centre of climate-resilient, nature-based value chains - and is the market finally ready to price that value correctly? At Industree, we see women not as beneficiaries but as central economic actors in building climate-resilient, nature-based value chains that respond to a growing global market for sustainable materials. Women already form the backbone of agriculture and forest-based livelihoods across rural India. When they are organised into producer collectives and connected directly to markets, they drive both productivity and long-term sustainability. Over the past two decades, the Industree Foundation ecosystem has demonstrated that inclusive and climate-positive value chains can also be commercially viable. Our work has impacted more than 600,000 lives and enabled nearly $ 60 million in cumulative market access for rural producers. These value chains focus on regenerative materials such as bamboo and other natural fibres that align ecological restoration with stable income generation. The market for nature-based products already exists and continues to grow as industries seek alternatives to carbon-intensive materials like plastic, steel, and conventional timber. The challenge is not demand but building supply chains that connect rural producers to that demand efficiently and fairly. Industree’s approach focuses on creating end-to-end, traceable value chains that link farmers and producers directly to buyers without multiple layers of intermediaries. By organising women into producer collectives and enterprises, and providing support in skills, aggregation, processing, and market access, we help ensure that a greater share of the value flows back to the communities that create it. An example of this model is GreenKraft Producer Company Ltd, a 100 per cent women-owned enterprise incubated by Industree that works with natural fibres such as bamboo, sal/siali and banana bark. By integrating rural producers into formal supply chains and connecting them with national and global markets, such enterprises demonstrate how climate-resilient, nature-based value chains can generate both environmental and economic value. While global markets are increasingly valuing responsibly sourced materials, this recognition has yet to translate into consistent and equitable price premiums for producers, with smallholder farmers and rural enterprises continuing to capture only a limited share of the added value. This underscores the need for stronger market mechanisms that reward sustainability more fairly and reliably. Scaling these models will require sustained investment in traceable supply chains, farmer collectives, and direct market linkages, enabling women producers to capture the full economic value of the growing demand for nature-based products. Climate adaptation is now a boardroom issue. How do you translate abstract climate risk into tangible income security for rural women producers on the ground? Climate adaptation becomes meaningful for rural communities when it delivers stable livelihoods and predictable income, particularly in regions where rainfall-dependent agriculture makes households highly vulnerable to climate shocks, often leading to income loss and migration. Addressing this requires shifting from input-intensive crops to resilient agroforestry systems. At Industree Foundation, this begins with enabling the cultivation of climate-resilient resources like bamboo on degraded or fallow land, restoring ecosystems while creating a long-term, low-input income stream that can last 40–45 years without displacing food crops. To convert this into sustained income, Industree builds structured, market-aligned value chains by aggregating women farmers into producer collectives and equipping them with training, tools, and machinery for primary processing and enterprise management. This is complemented by decentralised processing, adherence to quality and certification standards, and integration with direct market linkages that reduce intermediaries and improve price realisation. Industree also enables smallholder women farmers to acquire international certifications such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certification, which serve as a gateway to high-value markets by ensuring that bamboo is sustainably grown, legally compliant, and fully traceable across global supply chains. Through this end-to-end ecosystem spanning cultivation, skilling, processing, certification, and market access, Industree translates climate resilience into dignified, stable jobs, enabling women-led producer enterprises that are economically viable and embedded within regenerative, globally connected value chains. Nature-based enterprises are often seen as artisanal and small-scale. What will it take to make them competitive with industrial supply chains - without compromising ecological integrity? Nature-based enterprises are often perceived as artisanal or small-scale, not because of limited potential but due to fragmented value chains. To compete with industrial supply systems, these enterprises must be structured as end-to-end value chains that integrate production, aggregation, quality assurance, certification, and market access. At Industree Foundation, the focus has been on building traceable and certified supply chains that meet global standards while maintaining ecological integrity. Certification plays a crucial role in enabling access to higher-value markets. Alongside Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification for responsibly sourced bamboo, producer enterprises within the Industree ecosystem also align with global compliance frameworks such as SMETA and other international quality and ethical sourcing standards. These certifications help ensure transparency, responsible production practices, and credibility with global buyers. Equally important is the producer organisation. Industree has supported the incubation of 32 producer collectives and 12 farmer-producer organisations, demonstrating that scale becomes possible when rural producers are organised into structured enterprises. Through these institutions, producers are able to aggregate supply, maintain consistent quality, and participate in formal markets. Ultimately, competitiveness comes from combining institutional partnerships, certification, market alignment, and organised producer networks. When these elements are integrated, nature-based enterprises can operate at scale, access global markets, and remain both economically viable and environmentally responsible. Access to capital remains a bottleneck. Why do women-led, climate-positive enterprises still struggle to attract mainstream investment, and what needs to shift in the impact and climate finance ecosystem? Women-led, climate-positive enterprises often operate in sectors with long gestation periods and distributed production systems, which do not align with traditional investment expectations. These models require collective ownership, livelihood security, and ecological outcomes, which are not always captured in conventional financial metrics. At Industree, we work with a mix of public programmes, CSR, and impact capital to enable enterprise growth. There is a need for financial models that recognise blended value with economic, social, and environmental returns. As nature-based industries scale, they must be recognised as viable economic sectors. Unlocking capital will require patient financing, risk-sharing mechanisms, and stronger market linkages. Producer ownership is central to your model. In a world obsessed with hyper-growth and exits, how do you defend collective ownership as a scalable and investable structure? While the broader business ecosystem often prioritises hyper-growth and rapid exits, rural enterprises require a different lens, where sustainable scale is built through strong institutions, organised producer groups, and long-term market linkages. At Industree, the model is rooted in the belief that when women are entrusted with ownership, they build more resilient and enduring enterprises, drawing on their deep knowledge of local resources, production systems, and community networks. Over the past decade, government has invested in collective ownership models. We wish to leverage and build upon these in the rural sector. Collective ownership is central because it ensures that value remains within the community, with women producers transitioning from participants in value chains to owners and decision-makers. Through targeted capacity building, leadership development, and enterprise management training, they are equipped to run and govern their businesses, while external support gradually transitions to community ownership to ensure long-term sustainability. This approach redefines empowerment in economic terms, as women-led enterprises influence how resources are allocated, profits are reinvested, and opportunities are shared, often prioritising stability and collective welfare. Industree’s vision is to build networks of women-led collectives that are both commercially viable and socially transformative, where scale is defined not just by growth, but by deepened ownership, stronger leadership, and greater community resilience. Measurement drives markets. How do you quantify the dual return - economic empowerment for women and measurable environmental outcomes - in a way that resonates with global buyers and investors? At Industree Foundation, impact measurement is embedded within the business model to align social outcomes with market demand and investment. On the economic front, the organisation tracks indicators such as income enhancement, enterprise ownership, and market access, with more than 40,000 women trained and integrated into nature-based value chains. These systems ensure that rural producers are not only participants but also stakeholders in the enterprises they help build. Environmental metrics are equally important. Regenerative value chains such as bamboo cultivation enable measurable outcomes, including carbon sequestration, land restoration, and improved biodiversity. Certification frameworks such as Forest Stewardship Council certification strengthen these efforts by ensuring traceability and responsible sourcing across the supply chain. As global buyers increasingly prioritise transparency and sustainability, such verified systems help link environmental and social impact directly with market access. By aligning measurable outcomes with buyer expectations, nature-based enterprises can unlock stronger market opportunities while demonstrating long term ecological and economic value. Across all three value chains 94 per cent women reported there has been increase in new employment opportunities, 85 per cent reported improved competency and access to productive economic resources, 76 per cent women have reported their increased participation in family decision making. Policy ambition on climate is rising in India. Where do you see the biggest gap between national climate commitments and the lived realities of women working in forest and farm-based economies? India’s climate ambitions are significant, but the key gap lies in translating policy into viable livelihood opportunities for women in forest- and farm-based economies. While access to land and finance remains a challenge, the more critical constraint is the lack of reliable market linkages, which limits their ability to convert climate-positive production into stable income. This is further compounded by the absence of standardised certification and quality assurance systems, restricting access to higher-value domestic and export markets. Climate solutions may be framed at a national level, but their success depends on enabling women producers to participate competitively in markets. Bridging this gap requires stronger convergence between government systems, institutions, and industry players to ensure not just access to resources, but also robust market connect and certification frameworks. This is essential to making climate action both economically viable and truly inclusive. If you look 10 years ahead, do you see women-led, nature-based enterprises as a niche sustainability play, or as core infrastructure for India’s climate and economic future? Yes, over the next 10 years, women-led, nature-based enterprises will become core infrastructure for India’s climate and economic future, not a niche sustainability play. Industree’s work over the past two decades has consistently shown that these enterprises are inherently women-led, because they are rooted in locally available natural resources like bamboo and other fibres, and built on generations of knowledge that women already possess. What women need is structured early-stage support; with the right hand-holding through training, institution-building, and market access, they are able to take ownership, scale operations, and build stable, long-term income streams.bamboo and bana, and other Industree has demonstrated the scalability of this model by training over 40,000 women and integrating them into organised, market-linked value chains, where they transition from workers to enterprise leaders. Its “Lakhpati Didi” vision aligns with national priorities to enable rural women to achieve annual incomes of Rs 1 lakh and above through sustainable livelihoods, ensuring that income growth is both scalable and climate-resilient. Building on this momentum, Industree is partnering with State Rural Livelihood Missions (SRLMs) across India to empower one million women farmers across 500 collectives over the next five years, driving bamboo-based livelihoods at scale. As climate risks intensify, the alignment between women’s livelihoods and natural resource-based economies will only strengthen. These value chains not only offer long-term economic resilience, often sustaining incomes for decades, but also contribute to ecological restoration. The shift ahead is therefore structural, with climate action and enterprise development working hand in hand, positioning women-led, nature-based enterprises as a foundational pillar of India’s future growth. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3697/why-ease-of-doing-business-needs-bolstering.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3697/why-ease-of-doing-business-needs-bolstering.html Wed, 15 Apr 2026 13:27:31 +0530 India’s fertiliser sector is central to food security, farmer livelihoods, fiscal stability, and industrial growth. Yet, despite its strategic importance, it remains one of the most tightly regulated and policy-constrained industries—a paradox in an era where Ease of Doing Business (EoDB) drives economic reform.  While India has advanced digitisation, tax rationalisation, and regulatory simplification, fertilisers remain encumbered by legacy laws, price controls, fragmented licensing, and onerous compliance. The sector thus struggles to balance food security imperatives with outdated regulation. This analysis examines India’s fertiliser ecosystem through the prism of EoDB, identifies structural and regulatory bottlenecks and situates these challenges within the broader tapestry of national EoDB reforms championed by the Government of India. Fertilisers in India are more than industrial commodities—they underpin food security, crop yields, soil health, and farm incomes, shaping rural livelihoods and national stability. Despite national reforms aimed at EoDB, legacy controls persist, straining manufacturers and slowing innovation. Delays in subsidies, inverted taxes, and fragmented licensing increase working capital pressures, making expansion and technological upgrades difficult. In tightly regulated markets, regulatory unpredictability acts as an invisible tax on productivity. Dr Debashis Mandal, Head, Division of Soil Science & Agricultural Chemistry, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), frames the challenge sharply: the sector’s EoDB journey is not merely procedural—it is a strategic enabler of soil restoration and nutrient efficiency. “If crops demand nutrients and soils demand carbon, then policy must supply predictability,” he notes. “Timely, science-based approvals and transparent regulatory pathways are essential for translating innovations—such as organo-mineral complexes, slow-release formulations, and advanced nutrient delivery systems—into field-level impact. EoDB does not imply diluted standards; it means creating a facilitative, risk-based framework that accelerates responsible technologies, reduces cultivation costs, improves nutrient use efficiency, and ultimately restores balance between productivity and sustainability.” The urgency of improving nutrient efficiency is stark. In India, nitrogen use efficiency hovers at only 30–40 per cent, meaning up to 70 per cent of applied nitrogen is lost to volatilisation, leaching, or environmental pollution. Fertiliser subsidies total nearly Rs 2 lakh crore annually, with urea alone accounting for Rs 1.35 lakh crore. As Dr Monoranjan Mohanty, Director, ICAR-Indian Institute of Soil Science, Bhopal, explains, even a modest 10–15 per cent improvement in efficiency could save thousands of crores while enhancing soil health. Achieving this, he adds, requires biostimulants and biofertilisers to have clear, science-based regulatory pathways, predictable approval timelines, incentivised R&D, and a market where start-ups and MSMEs can operate without excessive compliance burdens, while quality standards encourage innovation rather than stifle it. Innovation should reach farmers’ fields without unnecessary delays. Dr P K Singh, Agriculture Commissioner, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, frames it as creating a predictable, science-driven ecosystem where micronutrients, bio-inputs, and balanced fertilisers move swiftly from laboratory to land. “When products reach farmers at the right time and cost, we strengthen soil health, enhance productivity, and build a resilient agricultural economy for a self-reliant India,” he says. Industry observers see a clear business case behind these reforms. Soumyak Biswas, Partner, BDO India Services Pvt Ltd, points out that the post-Budget policy environment signals a potential pivot from incremental tinkering to structural reform. “Regulatory simplification, digitised approvals, and reduced compliance friction can address long-standing industry challenges, lowering time-to-market and operational uncertainty,” he says. According to Biswas, a risk-based, trust-led regulatory framework, coupled with policy predictability and defined approval timelines, could unlock investment in specialty fertilisers, bio-inputs, and sustainable solutions. For smaller firms and start-ups, such clarity is not just a convenience—it is the difference between surviving and scaling in a capital-intensive sector.  Legacy Regulation and Economic Consequences At the heart of India’s fertiliser regulatory framework lies the Fertiliser Control Order (FCO), administered under the Essential Commodities Act of 1955. Designed in an era of scarcity and state-led planning, the FCO aimed to prevent hoarding, enforce quality standards, and ensure equitable distribution. Control, not competition, was its guiding principle. Six decades on, the same framework operates in a vastly different landscape—characterised by global trade, private-sector innovation, digital governance, and competitive manufacturing ecosystems. What was once protective has become a structural bottleneck. Manufacturers navigate multiple layers of licensing, state-wise product registrations, infrastructure stipulations, periodic renewals, and overlapping inspections. The absence of a harmonised “One Nation, One Licence” regime forces duplication across states, inflating costs, slowing time-to-market, and suppressing economies of scale. For start-ups and SMEs, the compliance burden can be prohibitive. Dr Rahul Mirchandani, Chairman & Managing Director, Aries Agro Ltd., underscores the potential of digitisation: “Ease of Doing Business in agri inputs is not about lowering standards — it is about removing duplication, strengthening transparency, and enabling innovation. I propose a transformative reform: the creation of a centralised digital data stack for agri input licensing. ‘One Nation, ‘One License’ will provide harmonised approvals, uniform quality standards, real-time compliance tracking, and seamless operations across states, benefiting start ups, MSMEs, research-driven companies, and ensuring farmers timely access to quality inputs.” Regulatory asymmetry between domestic production and imports exacerbates challenges. Imported fertilisers often face fewer operational frictions than domestically manufactured products, creating an uneven playing field that undermines self-reliance goals. Delayed approvals, evolving compliance interpretations, and working capital pressures constrain investment, slow capacity expansion, and shrink research pipelines for advanced nutrient technologies. As imports fill domestic gaps, exposure to global price volatility, geopolitical risks, and currency fluctuations grows. India allocates one of the world’s largest fertiliser subsidies, yet regulatory inefficiency limits domestic competitiveness. Modernising the FCO through digitised licensing, harmonised standards, and transparent, time-bound approvals is not a mere industry demand—it is central to strengthening domestic manufacturing, reducing import dependence, and ensuring that public subsidy expenditure delivers long-term structural resilience. Taxation, Subsidies and Structural Distortions If regulatory complexity forms one layer of challenge in India’s fertiliser sector, taxation and subsidy design form another—equally consequential, yet less visibly debated. Together, they shape commercial logic, influence nutrient consumption, and determine whether efficiency or distortion dominates the system. A persistent challenge is the inverted GST duty structure. In many cases, raw materials and key intermediates attract higher taxes than finished fertiliser products, locking up working capital in unutilised input tax credits. Refund cycles are slow and cumbersome, creating liquidity stress—particularly for small and mid-sized enterprises that lack the balance sheet strength of larger players. In a sector constrained by regulated margins, blocked capital is more than an accounting inconvenience; it is a growth bottleneck. The problem is compounded by non-uniform GST rates across fertiliser categories and allied inputs. Variations in classification and interpretation generate compliance ambiguities, inflate administrative overheads, and occasionally trigger disputes. Companies confront procedural complexity that dilutes managerial focus and increases transaction costs. EoDB demands simplicity and predictability—qualities only partially realised in the current tax environment. Subsidy architecture introduces a deeper structural distortion. Subsidies are indispensable in a country where farm incomes remain fragile and input affordability is politically sensitive. Yet their design significantly shapes farmer behaviour. Urea, excluded from the Nutrient-Based Subsidy (NBS) framework, is heavily subsidised and priced well below phosphatic and potassic fertilisers. The result: nutrient imbalance. Over-application of nitrogen and under-application of P&K has degraded soil health, lowered nutrient-use efficiency, and created long-term productivity challenges. Short-term affordability carries hidden agronomic and fiscal costs, with excessive nitrogen generating environmental externalities, from groundwater contamination to greenhouse gas emissions. Fiscal consequences are equally stark. Artificially low urea prices stimulate demand beyond agronomic recommendations, inflating subsidised volumes. Public expenditure absorbs the cost, yet efficiency suffers when price signals fail to reflect relative nutrient value. The Union Budget 2026-27 reflects these pressures. Anand Kulkarni, Director at Crisil Ratings, notes: “The Union Budget 2026-27 has allocated Rs 1.71 lakh crore for fertiliser subsidies, with Rs 1.17 lakh crore for urea and Rs 0.54 lakh crore for complex fertilisers. Allocation for complex fertilisers may face a 15–20 per cent shortfall due to sustained higher raw material and import costs, though government support is likely to ensure adequate supply.” S Sankarasubramanian, Chairman, Fertiliser Association of India and MD & CEO, Coromandel International Ltd., adds, “The allocations underline a steady commitment to domestic capability. Support for indigenous urea and P&K, alongside imported fertiliser support, reinforces supply security while maintaining farmer access. Customs duty rationalisation and addressing inverted GST structures help streamline costs, improve cash flows, and create a more predictable operating environment.” Moving Beyond Incrementalism Meaningful EoDB reform in India’s fertiliser sector cannot rely on piecemeal adjustments; it requires structural recalibration. At its core lies the FCO, conceived for scarcity management rather than competitive efficiency. Modernisation demands a shift from blanket administrative controls to risk-based, data-driven quality regulation. Encouraging domestic innovation is central. Jayakumar Jitendrasinh Rawal, Minister of Marketing and Protocol, Maharashtra, underscores the vision: “Food production has always been India’s greatest strength. By advancing progressive policies and ensuring EoDB in agri-inputs, we can build a resilient, globally competitive, and self-reliant agricultural system. The micro-fertiliser and nutrient industry has, over the past four decades, played a pivotal role in improving crop yield, quality, and productivity, positioning India among the world’s leading food producers. With strong support for MSME-driven industries and sustained investment in research, development, and innovation, we are committed to achieving global agricultural leadership by 2047.” Reform in fertilisers is not merely industrial adjustment—it is a strategic investment in India’s agricultural future. Structural recalibration, harmonised regulation, and innovation-led policy are essential to ensure efficiency, sustainability, and competitiveness advance hand in hand. ---- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3692/carlo-boutton-on-advancing-precision-biologicals-in-crop-protection.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3692/carlo-boutton-on-advancing-precision-biologicals-in-crop-protection.html Tue, 14 Apr 2026 15:48:51 +0530 In an exclusive Agrospectrum interview, Carlo Boutton highlights how AGROBODY technology is addressing resistance, scalability, and sustainability challenges in modern agriculture with support from Syngenta Carlo Boutton, interim CEO of Biotalys, highlights that transitioning from lab to field remains a key hurdle, particularly in scaling protein-based crop protection solutions while maintaining efficacy, safety, and cost efficiency. He notes that the company’s AGROBODY platform, developed in collaboration with Syngenta, reflects a broader industry shift toward integrating biologicals as a core pillar of future crop protection strategies rather than niche alternatives. Boutton emphasizes that while protein-based biocontrols offer novel modes of action and strong potential in resistance management, they will complement rather than fully replace chemical solutions within integrated pest management systems. He adds that long-term growth will depend on platform-driven innovation, regulatory support, and advances in scalable production to make sustainable biologicals both effective and affordable for farmers. Early lab success is encouraging, but the real test lies in field performance. What are the biggest scientific or operational hurdles you anticipate as you move from in vitro to in vivo and eventually to commercialization ? Syngenta and Biotalys will now test the novel active ingredients on living organisms and then evaluate results. Moving from in vitro to in vivo and ultimately to field development is always a critical transition point for any new crop protection technology. Operationally, scaling a novel protein-based active ingredient also requires ensuring manufacturing capabilities at commercial scale, while maintaining efficacy and safety. This is why Biotalys follows a staged development approach, combining laboratory screening with progressive in vivo validation and close collaboration with industrial partners that have deep expertise in strain engineering, precision fermentation, field development and commercialisation.  Your collaboration with Syngenta is a strong signal of industry alignment. What does this partnership reveal about how large incumbents are rethinking biologicals within their long-term crop protection strategies? The collaboration between Biotalys and Syngenta reflects a broader strategic shift among large incumbents toward integrating biologicals more deeply into future crop protection portfolios. Rather than viewing biologicals as niche or standalone alternatives, leading players are increasingly looking at platforms that can deliver differentiated modes of action, compatibility with existing practices, and scalability comparable to conventional solutions.  By combining Biotalys’ proprietary AGROBODY technology with Syngenta’s global development and market expertise, the collaboration aims to accelerate the translation of breakthrough biology into solutions that can be deployed at scale. This signals that biologicals are increasingly seen as a strategic pillar in addressing resistance management, regulatory pressure, and sustainability demands across major crop systems.  Biologicals have long struggled to match the consistency of synthetic chemistries. How does AGROBODY meaningfully shift that equation, and where do its limitations still remain? One of the historical challenges for biological crop protection products has been achieving consistency comparable to synthetic chemistries, particularly under variable environmental conditions. The AGROBODY platform of Biotalys is designed to address this by leveraging highly specific, antibody‑derived proteins that bind precisely to their biological targets. That is why we call these “precision biocontrols”, offering a clear and novel mode of action.  At the same time, Biotalys is transparent that protein-based solutions are not a one‑size‑fits‑all replacement for chemistry. Like any technology, AGROBODY‑based products must be optimized for formulation, application timing, and integration into broader spray rotation programs. Today, their greatest value lies in complementing existing tools, particularly where resistance or regulatory constraints limit chemical options, while offering a favourable safety and sustainability profile.  As resistance to conventional insecticides accelerates, do you see protein-based solutions becoming a primary line of defense, or will they remain complementary within integrated pest management systems? As resistance to conventional pesticides continues to accelerate, there is growing interest in protein-based solutions with novel modes of action as part of the resistance management toolbox. Biotalys sees these technologies as an increasingly important component of integrated pest management (IPM) programs.  In this respect, our first developed AGROBODY biocontrol, EVOCA, has been recognised as having a totally new mode of action by the Fungicide Resistance Action Committee (FRAC), a renown industry panel of scientists in the field. No resistance is known to our mode of action. This shows that our technology is able to develop novel and effective products that fit into the toolbox of growers.  Investors often question whether biologicals can deliver venture-scale returns. What is the commercial model that makes this platform not just viable, but scalable and profitable? Biotalys addresses this through a platform-driven business model rather than single‑product development. The AGROBODY technology enables the generation of multiple product candidates against different targets, allowing Biotalys to build a diversified pipeline and pursue partnerships that share development risk while expanding commercial reach.  Strategic collaborations, such as the one with Syngenta, provide non‑dilutive funding through milestones and potential royalties. Combined with advances in protein production and formulation, this approach is designed to support scalable, capital‑efficient growth. The objective is not only to bring differentiated products to market, but to do so in a way that can sustain long‑term value creation for both partners and investors.  With tightening global regulations on chemical pesticides, are policymakers moving fast enough to enable innovation, or is regulatory friction still a bottleneck for next-generation bioinsecticides? Globally, regulatory frameworks are evolving in response to the need for more sustainable crop protection solutions, but progress remains uneven. In some regions, policymakers are actively seeking to encourage innovation in biologicals, while in others, regulatory processes originally designed for chemical actives still slow down approval pathways for biological products.  Biotalys engages proactively with regulators to help ensure that protein-based biocontrols are assessed in a science‑based and proportionate manner. We are for exploring options for a fast-track procedure for biological products such as our AGROBODY biocontrols. Continued dialogue between innovators, regulators, and policymakers will be critical to unlocking the full potential of sustainable crop protection technologies.  The agri-inputs market is highly price sensitive. How do you plan to bridge the gap between sustainability and affordability without relying on premium positioning alone? Affordability is a central consideration in the agri‑inputs market, and sustainability alone is not sufficient to drive adoption. Biotalys’ strategy focuses on designing products that deliver clear agronomic value, such as efficacy against resistant pests or compatibility with spray rotation programs, while working toward cost‑competitive production at scale. Advances in strain engineering, precision-fermentation, and formulation are key levers in narrowing the cost gap between biologicals and conventional solutions.  Rather than relying solely on premium positioning, Biotalys aims to compete on total value delivered to the grower, including yield protection, resistance management, and regulatory robustness.  Looking ahead, does this milestone mark incremental progress, or are we at the early stages of a structural shift in how crop protection products are discovered, developed, and deployed? This first research milestone with Syngenta represents more than an isolated research success; it points to a broader evolution in how new, safe and effective crop protection products are discovered and developed. Technologies like the AGROBODY platform enable a more targeted approach to biocontrol discovery. That said, I expect the transformation of crop protection to be gradual. Chemistry, biologicals, and good agronomic practices will continue to coexist on the short term and will gradually evolve to a more biologics centered approach over time. Companies like Biotalys that are driving innovation are of critical importance to accelerate shaping the future of a sustainable agriculture.  --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3690/new-farm-engine-runs-on-data-not-diesel.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3690/new-farm-engine-runs-on-data-not-diesel.html Mon, 13 Apr 2026 12:42:49 +0530 In an exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Simon Henry outlines how aerial intelligence is cutting inputs, boosting yields, and driving ESG outcomes Simon Henry, Vice President of Business Development – EMEA / Ireland at ZenaTech, outlines how precision agriculture is rapidly shifting from a niche innovation to a necessity across EMEA, driven by regulatory pressure, rising costs, and climate volatility. He emphasizes that ZenaTech’s Drone-as-a-Service model is breaking down cost and complexity barriers, making advanced aerial intelligence accessible to farms of all sizes. The company is tackling one of the sector’s biggest challenges—turning complex data into actionable insights—by embedding AI-driven analytics that deliver real-time, field-level decisions. Henry highlights how drone-led automation can significantly cut input waste, improve water efficiency, and boost profitability while aligning with sustainability and ESG goals. Looking ahead, he envisions a digitally integrated farming ecosystem powered by AI, predictive analytics, and emerging technologies, positioning drones as a critical support system rather than a replacement for farmers. Precision Agriculture at Scale ZenaTech’s drone solutions enable plant health monitoring, crop mapping, and early stress detection using multispectral imaging. How do you see precision agriculture evolving from a niche technology to a mainstream farming necessity across EMEA markets? In the EMEA region, precision agriculture is already considered a structural necessity, rather than a luxury, in many regions. This has been driven by increasingly rigorous EU mandates, rising input costs, and fluctuating supply markets. The reason this may not be illustrated in practice is because mainstream adoption has been hindered by the high cost of entry and technical complexity required by many solutions currently on the market.  ZenaTech is bridging this gap through our Drone as a Service (DaaS) model. By building precision agriculture as a scalable utility, we enable farmers to meet strict targets and maximise their inputs without the burden of hardware ownership. As climate volatility increases, our real-time multispectral insights will provide the essential resilience needed to transform localized data into a universal standard for sustainable, high-yield farming. Harnessing this resilience will become crucial to safeguarding yields throughout the coming decades, as farms of all sizes and specialisms worldwide grapple with intensifying climate volatility. From Data to Decisions Your platforms generate high-resolution, real-time agricultural data. What are the biggest barriers farmers face in translating this data into actionable decisions, and how is ZenaTech addressing this gap? For most farmers, the primary barrier is the challenge of translating complex multispectral maps into practical field-level actions. Most platforms provide data that requires manual interpretation, creating a technical gap that stalls decision-making and in doing so, lessens impact. ZenaTech is focused on addressing this by integrating AI-powered analytics directly into our ZenaDrone ecosystem. Our software processes raw data into prescription maps that identify specific issues like nitrogen deficiency or pest outbreaks in real-time, cutting out the middleman entirely. By providing actionable insights and ensuring our software platform integrates with existing farm management systems, we turn aerial intelligence into a practical tool for increasing crop yields and operational efficiency. This allows farmers to make better, faster decisions with confidence,  based on our data-based insights. Drone-as-a-Service (DaaS) vs Ownership Models ZenaTech’s DaaS model removes the need for upfront drone investment. How disruptive is this model for traditional agri-tech adoption, especially among small and mid-sized farms? DaaS model is cutting-edge in innovating legacy and low-tech processes. Historically, precision agriculture required six-figure investments in hardware, specialized pilot training, and complex regulatory compliance. As a result, the largest industrial farms could avail of this technology. By removing the capital expenditure wall and supporting users with a skilled DaaS consultant who provides in-person setup and ongoing customer support tailored to clients' needs, we have democratized access through our drone technology. Small and mid-sized farmers can now access advanced multispectral imaging and precision spraying through a manageable, predictable operational expense. We also manage the technical overhead, including AI data processing and flight certifications, to ensure farmers are provided with actionable insights without the need for deep technical knowledge on their end. This pay-per-use flexibility ensures that cutting-edge aerial intelligence is no longer a luxury but an accessible tool for increasing profit and enhancing sustainability across the entire agricultural spectrum. AI, Automation & Farm Economics With AI-driven plant counting, disease detection, and yield optimization, how significantly can drone-led automation reduce input costs and improve farm profitability in real terms? Crucially, our drone technology has the capacity to eliminate the need to "blanket spray” fertilizer, which is a traditional approach that wastes a substantial amount of chemical input for the average farmer annually, while also stifling their ability to meet key sustainable targets. Instead, our multispectral drone imaging enables precise, variable-rate application, reducing fertilizer and pesticide costs. By moving operations to the air, we also have the capacity to eliminate soil compaction caused by heavy machinery, which can improve yields significantly. Meanwhile, our disease and pest detection software helps to mitigate unforeseen risks, ensuring farmers can maximise yield from their inputs. Ultimately, Zenatech’s Drone as a Service model replaces high-risk investments with a “pay-per-use” service that slashes labour, input waste, and mitigates profit lost through avoidable risks, ensuring precision agriculture is the most profitable path for any modern farm. Water & Climate Intelligence Given increasing climate stress and water scarcity, how can drone-based 3D mapping and irrigation analytics reshape water-use efficiency in agriculture? We tackle this in a similar way to how we effectively manage fertilizer use; through the insights provided by our drone-based 3D mapping, we replace broad irrigation tactics with 3D-driven precision irrigation. Through our ZenaDrone technology, we create high-resolution topographic maps that reveal exactly how water moves across a field, identifying drainage issues and high-risk drought zones. Complementing this, our multispectral and thermal sensors detect crop water stress in real time, allowing for localized, variable-rate irrigation. By targeting only the areas in need, farmers can significantly reduce water (and energy waste) while maintaining optimal plant hydration. Through our DaaS model, this high-level irrigation intelligence becomes an affordable necessity for every kind of farm navigating the challenges of global water scarcity. Integration with Broader Agri-Tech Ecosystems How does ZenaTech envision integrating drone data with farm management systems, satellite analytics, and IoT platforms to create a unified “digital farm” ecosystem? In ZenaTech’s vision for a unified “digital farm” ecosystem, ZenaDrone serves as the primary engine for real-time intelligence. We integrate aerial data with IoT ground sensors and satellite analytics via our Enterprise SaaS platform, creating a single source of truth for farmers to refer to. By using open APIs, our AI-driven insights flow directly into existing farm management systems and smart machinery, enabling automated, variable-rate applications. This seamless integration (supported by our upcoming quantum-enhanced processing) transforms fragmented data points into a cohesive, predictive toolset, allowing farmers to optimize every acre with unprecedented speed and precision. Regulatory & Airspace Challenges in EMEA Drone deployment in agriculture is often constrained by regulatory frameworks. What are the key policy bottlenecks across Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, and how can they be streamlined to unlock scale? As with any set of tech-focused regulatory frameworks, this is an ongoing conversation across many jurisdictions. Specifically, governments around the world have placed a focus on developing regulatory frameworks for the new world of drones for a number of years already, with the aim of opening airspace to enable businesses to use this technology. The good news is that ZenaTech’s DaaS model is specifically designed to manage these considerations on behalf of the end-user. Rather than forcing farmers to carry the regulatory burden, we can offer Drone as a Service as an end-to-end solution, controlling all aspects of the drone analytics process from hardware, software, and AI-driven analytics to operational flight services. This gives farmers peace of mind that the regulatory aspect of our operation is compliant within the areas we service. Sustainability & ESG Alignment With increasing focus on carbon footprint and sustainable farming, how can drone-enabled agriculture contribute to measurable ESG outcomes for farmers, agribusinesses, and investors? On the environmental side, our ZenaDrone technology enables a significant reduction in chemical inputs through precision variable-rate spraying, which directly lowers nitrous oxide emissions and prevents nitrogen run-off. By replacing heavy, diesel-burning tractors with autonomous aerial systems, we also eliminate soil compaction, which restores soil health and improves carbon sequestration, while reducing the farm’s overall footprint. From a monitoring and governance perspective, our integrated Enterprise SaaS platform provides an automated, immutable audit trail for every field action. This high-level transparency provides the comprehensive proof required for agribusinesses to validate sustainable practices, comply with the EU Green Deal, and secure green financing from ESG-focused investors. The Future: Autonomous Farming Systems Looking ahead to 2030, do you see agriculture moving toward fully autonomous, drone-led farm management systems? What role will AI, predictive analytics, and possibly quantum computing play in that transition? Our Drone-as-a-Service model is not engineered to realize a fully autonomous, drone-led farm management system but to permanently alleviate the time, environmental, and safety burdens associated with traditional management systems from farmers, while boosting their confidence to make more informed strategic decisions. We recognize the many plates that the modern farmer has to spin, from business strategy to supply chain management to everyday risk management and execution. We want to position ourselves as supporting staff, easing the day-to-day burden for farmers by providing them with detailed, actionable insights, specific to their operation, thereby enhancing their decision-making, without requiring extra elbow work. By 2030, we want to be facilitating as many farmers as possible to leverage the benefits of AI, predictive analytics, and quantum computing in their everyday practice to enhance sustainability, mitigate risk, reduce costs, and increase yield, while lessening their workload. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3686/ai-based-tools-can-help-farmers-and-policymakers-interpret-uncertainty-and-environmental-variability-more-effectively-microsoft.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3686/ai-based-tools-can-help-farmers-and-policymakers-interpret-uncertainty-and-environmental-variability-more-effectively-microsoft.html Fri, 10 Apr 2026 15:25:35 +0530 Human oversight and contextual intelligence key to scaling AI in agriculture In an exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Maj Sapna Nauhria, Industry Director, Public Sector, Asia, Microsoft, highlights that AI’s real value in agriculture lies in bridging policy intent with field realities by enabling data-driven, context-specific decisions while respecting ecological limits. She emphasises that for initiatives like the Digital Agriculture Mission to succeed, advisories must be localised, transparent, and directly linked to on-ground factors such as water availability and infrastructure. The discussion underscores that AI should complement—not replace—farmer judgment, with trust built through explainable recommendations, human oversight, and integration of local knowledge systems. Looking ahead to 2026, she notes that success will be reflected in behavioural shifts such as condition-based farming, reduced risk, and improved input efficiency, rather than just an increase in digital advisories or policy outputs. Spending vs. Soil Reality India’s agri budgets have expanded significantly, yet agriculture ultimately responds to soil health, water availability, and climate variability. Where can AI genuinely bridge the gap between fiscal intent and biological constraints—and where can it not ? AI as an Enabler Within Ecological Realities India’s expanding agricultural budgets reflect strong fiscal commitment, and agricultural outcomes are dependent on combination of  technological tools and natural factors such as soil health, water availability, and climate variability.  AI‑enabled tools can help support more informed decisions related to timing, targeting, and resource use. By integrating weather forecasts, soil information, and crop growth models, AI based systems may generate indicative insights such as potential input needs, irrigation timing considerations, or early signals of pest or crop stage conditions. AI generated insights may help identify situations where adjusting input use could be beneficial and may help institutions better understand regional variability in climate related risks. In this way, AI can serve as an information layer that helps relate policy objectives to observed field conditions.‑based systems may generate indicative insights such as potential input needs, irrigation timing considerations, or early signals of pest or crop‑stage conditions‑generated insights may help identify situations where adjusting input use could be beneficial and may help institutions better understand regional variability in climate‑related risks. AI based tools can support more frequent monitoring of crop conditions and soil variability. Continuous monitoring of crop response, soil moisture, and variability across regions can help institutions understand which interventions are working and where natural constraints are limiting the progress. These insights may help institutions consider adjustments during the season based on observed patterns.‑based tools can support more frequent monitoring of crop conditions and soil variability Ongoing efforts to enhance soil health and address challenges related to cropping decisions remain essential. AI‑based tools can help farmers and policymakers interpret uncertainty and environmental variability more effectively. The value of AI based tools lies in helping ensure that decisions are informed by local ecological and contextual factors. When used within natural constraints, these tools can help support decision making in ways that align with field realities. ‑based tools lies in helping ensure that decisions are informed by local ecological and contextual factors. When used within natural constraints, these tools can help support decision‑making in ways that align with field realities Digital Agriculture Mission and the Farm Itself The Digital Agriculture Mission promises registries, advisories, and digital execution. From a farmer’s standpoint, what must change on the ground for this to move from dashboards to day-to-day agronomic decisions ? India’s Digital Agriculture Mission (DAM) aims to provide digital infrastructure that can help support more informed agronomic decision making. From a farmer standpoint, the expected changes on ground are:‑making. First, consideration is ensuring advisories are timely, locally relevant, and practical for farmers to use.Farmers may benefit from advisories that reflect localized factors—such as indicative sowing windows, potential irrigation considerations based on weather forecasts, or signals related to crop stages. A digital system gains significance only when it is grounded in data relevant to specific farm and a farmer can authenticate and engage with it. Without such contextual detail, digital systems may primarily support administrative processes rather than day‑to‑day agronomic decision‑making. Second, farmer data must translate into tangible benefits: Farmers share information about their land and crops, and ensuring that this information connects to clear and understandable insights may help strengthen the practical value of digital agriculture tools. For digital agriculture to influence decisions, farmers must see practical benefits, such as greater clarity on changing conditions or potential risks. In agriculture, transparency is critical, advisories should be simple, in native language and explain why a recommendation has changed and which risk it aims to mitigate. Trust grows when farmers can connect their data to practical outcomes. Third, Phygital systems grounded in physical realities, especially water. Farmers may benefit from advisories if they are closely linked with the on-ground resources and infrastructure, such as irrigation schedules, canal releases, and electricity supply. Advisories tend to be more relevant when they consider the on ground context—such as water availability or local infrastructure—along with technological inputs.‑ground context—such as water availability or local infrastructure—along with technological inputs. Digital agriculture efforts might be most valuable when information is simple, clear, and tailored to farmers’ local needs. Climate Volatility as an Agronomic ProblemClimate risk is often framed in financial or insurance terms. How can AI help farmers make better in-season agronomic choices—crop selection, planting windows, irrigation, and input timing—under rising climate uncertainty ? Rising climate variability—such as shifts in rainfall, temperature, and pest pressures—can require farmers to make more frequent in season decisions.AI based tools may support this shift by offering data informed insights that complement traditional knowledge and assist with more adaptive planning.‑season decisions.‑based tools may support this shift by offering data‑informed insights that complement traditional knowledge and assist with more adaptive planning. For crop and variety considerations, AI based systems can use weather outlooks, soil information, and historical patterns to present scenarios or options that reflect different levels of potential risk. These scenarios may help farmers weigh different considerations under uncertain seasonal conditions.‑based systems can use weather outlooks, soil information, and historical patterns to present scenarios or options that reflect different levels of potential risk. In planting decisions, AI supported tools may highlight short time windows that align with factors such as soil moisture or forecasted conditions. By considering factors such as soil moisture, temperature, and short term rainfall forecasts, these tools can provide farmers with information relevant to sowing decisions, which are often sensitive to climatic shifts‑supported tools may highlight short time‑windows that align with factors such as soil moisture or forecasted conditions.‑term rainfall forecasts, these tools can provide farmers with information relevant to sowing decisions, which are often sensitive to climatic shifts For irrigation, AI enabled models may help identify conditions associated with potential water stress by using inputs such as weather forecasts and evapotranspiration estimates. These insights may support farmers in considering irrigation timing within their local context and available resources.‑enabled models may In input and crop protection timing, AI based tools may provide information on how evolving conditions could influence timing considerations. These advisories may highlight situations where certain conditions could influence decisions about input timing.‑protection timing‑based tools may provide information on how evolving conditions could influence timing considerations. Crucially, AI does not replace farmer judgment. Its value lies in updating recommendations as conditions shift, communicating risks transparently, and supporting informed human decisions. AI supported tools can serve as one source of information as farmers navigate uncertainty during the season.‑supported tools can serve as one source of information as farmers navigate uncertainty during the season Precision Without ExclusionAdvanced AI performs best where data density is high, yet most Indian farms operate with sparse digital inputs. How can AI systems deliver agronomic precision without marginalising smallholders or rain-fed regions ? If AI tools are designed only for highly instrumented environments, they may be less applicable across diverse agricultural settings. Supporting broader applicability may involve designing AI systems that can work with low signal, high‑signal, highvariability‑variability environments. One approach involves moving from precision dependent on dense datasets toward approaches that use inference. Data sources such as satellite imagery, local weather information, soil reports, and general crop patterns—combined with local ground truthing—can help generate context relevant insights, even where long term sensor datasets are limited.‑truthing—can help generate context‑relevant insights, even where long‑term sensor datasets are limited. Another consideration is the value of presenting ranges of potential outcomes rather than single point predictions. For smallholders managing climate variability, guidance that illustrates relative scenarios may be more relatable in uncertain conditions. Presenting confidence ranges, trade offs, or scenario based options may help farmers understand how advice relates to their own resources and conditions‑point predictions.‑offs, or scenario‑based options may help farmers understand how advice relates to their own resources and conditions Further, Human and community knowledge can serve as valuable complementary inputs alongside digital data. Farmer observations, extension workers’ insights, and local cropping practices may provide useful context signals for AI models, particularly in rainfed or ‑fed or mixed‑cropping systems with diverse patterns. Incorporating lightweight feedback mechanisms may help adjust model outputs to better reflect local conditions. Developing AI systems that account for variability, data gaps, and uncertainty—and that remain adaptable—may help support more inclusive use across diverse farm environments. When AI systems are designed to work with sparse signals and incorporate human context, they may support decision making‑making across both irrigated and rainfed areas‑fed areas. Trust at the Farm GateFarmers remain wary of AI recommendations that are statistically sound but agronomically implausible for their fields. What design principles are essential for AI systems to earn trust in high-stakes decisions like fertiliser application or irrigation scheduling ? Experience in many settings suggests that farmers may take time to adopt new technologies. Adoption may depend on factors such as confidence in the technology and the presence of locally validated examples that feel relevant to farmers. The following considerations may help support farmer confidence in AI based tools:‑based tools Recommendations may be more meaningful when they reflect local agronomic context alongside statistical analysis. AI enabled‑enabled tools may be more useful when they incorporate information such as crop stage, soil conditions, water availability, and micro‑climate patterns. Models that do not align with on ground‑ground realities may be perceived as less relevant by some farmers. Communicating ranges, potential risks, and the reasoning behind recommendations may help farmers interpret the information in context. Explaining the uncertainty behind a recommendation may help farmers better understand the information being provided. Some systems may use approaches such as risk levels, confidence ranges, or trade-offs to illustrate potential scenarios. This type of framing may help farmers interpret recommendations in the context of their own constraints.‑offs to illustrate potential scenarios Human and community insights can serve as valuable contextual inputs for AI supported tools. Extension officers, FPO leaders, and experienced farmers may help interpret local conditions that complement model outputs. Incorporating such feedback into the models may help align model outputs more closely with local context.‑supported tools Transparency about the basis for a recommendation may help support user understanding. Providing a clear rationale—for example, indicating which signals informed a recommendation—may help farmers understand why advice has changed. This reduces the perception of AI as a “black box” and supports better judgment.  AI supported tools can assist with information, but they do not replace farmer judgment or address underlying constraints such as water availability or long-term soil and climate conditions.‑based tools is also important‑supported tools can assist with information, but they do not replace farmer judgment or address underlying constraints such as water availability or long‑term soil and climate conditions. When AI supported tools incorporate transparency, local context, and practical considerations, they may better support informed decision-making. Trust may develop over time when systems provide information that aligns with farmers’ practical realities.‑supported tools incorporate transparency, local context, and practical considerations, they may better support informed decision‑making. Microsoft’s Role in Agricultural InnovationMicrosoft has invested in cloud, AI, satellite analytics, and digital public infrastructure globally. Which Microsoft innovations or architectural approaches are proving most impactful in agriculture today—and what lessons have emerged from deploying them in complex, smallholder-dominated systems like India ? Microsoft works across cloud, AI, satellite analytics, and digital public infrastructure, and this digital foundation can support partners who are developing agriculture focused tools. In smallholder dominated environments, where diversity, data variability, and field level complexity are common, several approaches have been used by ecosystem participants, and a number of learnings have emerged.‑focused tools. In smallholder‑dominated environments, where diversity, data variability, and field‑level complexity are common, several approaches have been used by ecosystem participants, and a number of learnings have emerged Democratising AI through local language, accessible interfaces: Ecosystem partners use Microsoft’s cloud and AI tools to develop solutions that operate in regional languages and through familiar channels—such as mobile phones, messaging based assistants, or simple voice interfaces. These approaches may help make digital tools more accessible for farmers who prefer straightforward, commonly used formats.‑language, accessible interfaces‑based assistants, or simple voice interfaces. These approaches may help make digital tools more accessible for farmers who prefer straightforward, commonly used formats. Lesson: Solutions that align with familiar usage patterns may be easier for farmers to adopt Open, modular AI components that innovators can adapt: Publicly available components—such as models for weather, imagery processing, soil insights, or field level classification—can be adapted by startups, research institutions, and government organizations to address local crop, soil, and climate conditions. This type of modularity may help partners tailor tools to regional needs.‑level classification—can be adapted by startups, research institutions, and government organizations to address local crop, soil, and climate conditions. This type of modularity may help partners tailor tools to regional needs. Lesson: Local datasets and context specific adjustments may be important for AI tools designed for smallholder environments.‑specific adjustments may be important for AI tools designed for smallholder environments. Data platforms that integrate diverse agricultural signals: Agriculture involves multiple sources of information, including imagery, weather, soil data, farm records, markets, and community feedback. Microsoft’s data platforms can help partners integrate these streams, which they may use to build more context aware digital tools. This approach allows innovators to focus more on solution design and less on handling disparate data sources‑aware digital tools. This approach allows innovators to focus more on solution design and less on handling disparate data sources Lesson: Integrated datasets may be more useful for inclusive agritech solutions than simply increasing data volume. Partnerships grounded in local expertise: Solutions can benefit when digital infrastructure is combined with institutions that understand agronomy, local water systems, and community engagement—such as agricultural universities, extension networks, cooperatives, and FPOs. These partnerships may help ensure that digital systems are grounded in practical realities and aligned with local field conditions. Lesson: Human expertise can play an important role in supporting interpretation and credibility for AI‑supported tools. What these deployments have illustrated Across diverse smallholder settings, several observations have emerged: Use of familiar devices may support adoption. Simple, accessible channels can make digital advisories easier for farmers to engage with. Human capacity building remains important. Strengthening the skills of extension officers, FPO leaders, and intermediaries can complement technical development. ‑building remains important. Models may need to reflect local variability. Soil, water, and cropping diversity across India often requires region-specific data inputs ‑specific data inputs Alignment with public programs may support scale. Digital tools that complement existing government or ecosystem programs can reach more users. Feedback loops can help refine tools. Farmer observations and field level exceptions may help partners improve system relevance over time.‑level exceptions may help partners improve system relevance over time. In summary, Microsoft’s contribution to agriculture reflects an ecosystem oriented approach—providing cloud, AI, data, and interoperability foundations that partners, researchers, and institutions can use to create locally grounded solutions. Experience from India suggests that solutions can be more useful when they reflect field complexity, incorporate local knowledge, and remain adaptable to smallholder realities.‑oriented approach—providing cloud, AI, data, and interoperability foundations that partners, researchers, and institutions can use to create locally grounded solutions. Experience from India suggests that solutions can be more useful when they reflect field complexity, incorporate local knowledge, and remain adaptable to smallholder realities. From Advisory to AccountabilityAs AI increasingly informs advisories, subsidies, and even credit eligibility, where should human agronomic judgment remain non-negotiable—and how should accountability be structured when AI-guided decisions fall short ? Human judgment remains indispensable wherever biological variability, local feasibility, or livelihood risk is involved. AI can provide timely insights, highlight risks, and improve efficiency—but must remain a supporting tool, not the decision-maker. Accountability, meanwhile, should rest with the institutions deploying AI, backed by transparent explanations and human review pathways. When these safeguards are in place, AI can enhance trust, fairness, and resilience across India’s smallholder agriculture systems. The 2026 Reality CheckBy 2026, what visible changes at the field level would signal that AI, policy, and capital are finally aligned in Indian agriculture—and what would indicate the system is still optimising for policy optics rather than farm outcomes ? By 2026, alignment between AI, policy, and capital in Indian agriculture should be visible  in everyday field behaviour and reduced farmer risk. What alignment looks like on the ground Farmers move from calendar-based to condition-based decisions: Sowing will align with soil moisture and short-term forecasts, not fixed dates. Irrigation will target crop stress instead of set rotations. Input use, especially fertilisers and chemicals, will be more restrained, with farmers better informed about when and where not to apply them based on clear risk–benefit analyses. Farmers focus on avoiding losses, not just increasing yield: Farmers act early to reduce mid-season losses. In risky areas, they choose more diverse crops and faster-growing varieties, aiming for resilience instead of just higher productivity. Farmers trust advice and know the reason behind it. They understand why a suggestion changed during the season and what risk it helps avoids. When extension workers, cooperatives, and digital tools give the same message, it shows that AI, field teams, and policies are working as one. What misalignment looks like High volumes of advisories with low behavioural change: If advisory frequency rises but water use, input efficiency, or loss patterns look the same as before, the system is likely prioritising digital output rather than agronomic outcomes. Dashboards may appear successful even as farmers quietly revert to traditional instincts because the guidance is not grounded in feasibility. Uniformity where diversity should exist: If cropping recommendations and risk alerts look identical across districts with very different soils, rainfall, and water access, it suggests the system is optimising for administrative convenience—not biological reality. Similarly, if farmer feedback is collected but not reflected in subsequent advisory adjustments, digital participation becomes extractive rather than empowering. Expecting AI to compensate for structural constraints: If technology is positioned as a workaround for depleted aquifers, degraded soils, delayed irrigation releases, or weak extension systems, the gap between digital claims and field realities will widen. When AI is asked to solve challenges that are fundamentally ecological or infrastructural, trust inevitably erodes. To conclude, By 2026, true alignment will be visible when AI quietly enables farmers to make less risky decisions, more often, even in difficult seasons. Success will be measured in avoided losses, adaptive behaviour, and farmer confidence. If those behavioural signals emerge, it means AI, policy, and capital are  reinforcing each other. -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3685/75-of-marine-protected-areas-hit-by-pollution-wake-up-call-for-global-conservation.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3685/75-of-marine-protected-areas-hit-by-pollution-wake-up-call-for-global-conservation.html Thu, 09 Apr 2026 13:12:19 +0530 Photo Credit: Michelangelo Pignani/FFI In an exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Dr. Amelia Wenger warns that global conservation efforts risk falling short as sewage pollution remains critically underfunded and poorly integrated into marine protection strategies In an exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Dr. Amelia Wenger, Water Pollution Program Lead at the Wildlife Conservation Society and Senior Research Fellow at the University of Queensland, highlighted that nearly 75 per cent of marine protected areas are impacted by sewage pollution, exposing a critical flaw in global ocean conservation strategies that overemphasize protection without addressing pollution. She stressed that while the “30 by 30” target is important, it risks prioritizing area coverage over actual biodiversity outcomes, especially as only a small fraction of ocean funding is directed toward pollution mitigation. Dr. Wenger explained that higher pollution levels within protected areas often stem from their proximity to densely populated, high-pressure zones, revealing gaps in integrated land-sea planning. The study underscores severe long-term ecological risks in tropical ecosystems, where wastewater pollution weakens coral reefs, seagrass, and mangroves while amplifying climate change impacts. She emphasized that effective conservation requires coordinated governance, increased investment in sanitation, and the use of advanced data and monitoring tools to tackle pollution alongside marine protection. Your study reveals that nearly 75 per cent of marine protected areas are affected by sewage pollution. What does this say about the current global approach to ocean conservation, and where is it fundamentally falling short? We can’t achieve the goals of the Global Biodiversity Framework without holistically addressing all the targets. That means that our push for “30 x 30” needs to be paired with tackling the threats that cannot be mitigated with protected areas, like pollution. Yet, according to a funding landscape report from Our Shared Seas, between 2015-2024, only 2.36 per cent of the global ocean funding went towards pollution. This means that we have a global threat to biodiversity – pollution – and we are significantly under resourcing our efforts to address it, which ultimately undermines our ability to achieve our marine biodiversity goals. One of the most striking findings is that pollution levels inside protected areas can be up to ten times higher than outside. How do you explain this paradox, and what systemic gaps does it expose? I think it highlights that in many cases, MPAs have been put in places where there were threats from fishing. And we know that the closer coral reefs are to populated areas, the more fishing pressure they experience. Our results reveal that these places are also experiencing greater pollution pressure too. We should still implement MPAs in places experiencing pollution, but we need our management activities to extend to efforts to reduce pollution too. I think our results expose that we are not systematically incorporating information about pollution into marine spatial planning or implementing integrated land-sea management.  The research highlights particularly severe impacts in coral reef and tropical regions. What are the long-term ecological consequences if wastewater pollution in these hotspots remains unaddressed? It has been demonstrated in multiple coral reef regions that wastewater pollution reduces coral growth rates and coral reproduction, while also making them more vulnerable to coral disease. It limits photosynthetic activity in seagrass meadows, and it makes mangrove forests more vulnerable to erosion. Most concerningly though is that it aggravates the impacts of climate change that they are already experiencing. Chronic nutrient loading heightens coral vulnerability to bleaching events and slows post-disturbance recovery. Mangroves also become more likely to die under nutrient enrichment conditions when facing drought caused by climate change. Altogether, these impacts undermine the structure, function, and long-term persistence of tropical coastal ecosystems, threatening their associated biodiversity and essential ecosystem services on which millions of people rely. And they will only get worse as climate change worsens. But this also means that we have a really important tool in our toolbox to increase the climate resilience of these ecosystems – pollution management! You’ve emphasized that marine protection alone cannot solve what is essentially a land-based problem. How should governments rethink the integration of land-use planning and ocean conservation policies? The land and sea are connected and yet, more often than not, the government departments that management sanitation, land-use planning, urban development, housing, and the environment are siloed. This means that it is very difficult to have cohesive and consistent policies to address this threat. Governments should: Utilize high-level coordinating mechanisms such as councils or committees within the centre of government or a government authority with policy coherence leadership. Establish clear mandates and responsibilities for departments in charge of sanitation services provision, environmental protection, and coordination with other institutions or the private sector. Encourage formal governance arrangements and informal mechanisms that facilitate communication and collaboration between government authorities and other governmental and non-governmental institutions. With the global “30 by 30” target gaining momentum, do you believe current commitments risk prioritizing quantity over quality when it comes to protected areas? Yes, I do. 30 x 30 is a mechanism to help deliver on biodiversity conservation, and a very important one. But there have been multiple studies that have demonstrated that MPAs are not effective when exposed to pollution.  So, I think we have gotten too focused on the 30 x 30 target and have lost sight of needing to also deliver on all the other targets in parallel to achieve our biodiversity conservation goals. The goal is biodiversity conservation, not MPA coverage, and I think that gets lost sometimes. The trends on where ocean funding has gone also demonstrate this – with protected areas and habitat protection receiving nearly a quarter of ocean funding between 2015-2024. From a policy and funding perspective, what are the biggest barriers to incorporating wastewater management into marine conservation strategies at scale? One is the siloed nature of government departments and policies, as I mentioned above, which means that the people who make policy decisions about sanitation are not the same as the people making policy decisions about marine conservation. The second is that delivering sanitation services is expensive and the sanitation sector faces major funding shortfalls. Because it is so expensive, there is often not the political will to invest in sanitation. But being able to link sanitation and marine conservation brings a new set of stakeholders like the tourism industry, fishers, recreational users of the ocean, who can all be champions and advocates for change and investment. The sewage crisis in the UK is a really interesting example of this.   Your study uses geospatial modeling to track nitrogen pollution. How can advancements in data and monitoring technologies improve accountability and decision-making for protected areas? Water quality monitoring can be complicated, and you need a lot of data to give you a realistic sense of what the levels of pollution are in a protected area. The more we can harness models and remote sensing and use those outputs in marine spatial planning exercises, the more we can assess the levels and impact of pollution on an MPA, and track improvements in pollution levels as we implement management actions on land. Beyond environmental damage, wastewater pollution has major public health and economic implications. How can policymakers better communicate these cross-sectoral risks to drive urgent action? I think it’s about selling the co-benefits that can come from addressing wastewater pollution and articulating how investment into sanitation improvements would compare to dealing with the public health, economic, and environmental issues separately. It’s also about knowing your audience and having tailored messaging about the myriad impacts that will resonate best with different audiences. If you had to identify one immediate, high-impact intervention that governments or global institutions could implement, what would it be to ensure marine protected areas actually deliver on their promise? Be clear on what is the biodiversity being protected in an MPA, identify the other threats facing it that will not be fixed with an MPA, and develop and implement strategies to address them. -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3683/fueling-future-suhas-baxi-on-making-indias-bioenergy-model-economically-viable.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3683/fueling-future-suhas-baxi-on-making-indias-bioenergy-model-economically-viable.html Wed, 08 Apr 2026 13:52:19 +0530 In an exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, BiofuelCircle’s Co-Founder and Group CEO outlines how scalable biomass supply chains, rural enterprises, and fuel substitution can transform agricultural waste into a sustainable energy solution without long-term subsidy dependence. In an exclusive interview with AgroSpectrum, Suhas Baxi, Co-Founder and Group CEO of BiofuelCircle, unpacks the real economics behind the “farm to fuel to soil” model and its path to self-sustainability. He highlights how scalable bioenergy systems can move beyond subsidy dependence by building efficient biomass supply chains and competitive pricing. The conversation dives into the rise of rural micro-entrepreneurship, revealing early profitability trends across biomass banks and their growing impact on local economies. Baxi also addresses critical risks, from feedstock volatility to environmental trade-offs, while explaining how digital marketplaces and data-led planning are reshaping the sector. Ultimately, he positions fuel substitution as the single most powerful metric proving that bioenergy can play a meaningful role in India’s energy transition. The “farm to fuel to soil” model promises a closed loop system where agricultural waste becomes energy and bio residue returns to farmland. Is this economically self sustaining at scale, or does it remain subsidy dependent in most markets? The farm to fuel to soil approach can achieve economic self-sufficiency when scaled effectively. Incentives and subsidies should ideally act as catalysts to accelerate adoption rather than long-term dependencies. As with most infrastructure-led sectors, bioenergy ventures typically operate on a three-to-five-year payback cycle, where early policy support helps unlock capital and drive momentum. However, reliance on continuous subsidies signals an inherent weakness in the model. Our focus is on developing supply chains and operational efficiencies that enable bioenergy products to compete with conventional fuels on price. This ensures long-term viability independent of policy support. A key enabler is building dependable biomass aggregation and logistics networks, ensuring consistent feedstock availability at stable and predictable costs for both producers and end users. You describe the model as a catalyst for rural micro entrepreneurship. How many of these enterprises are truly profitable without grant capital and what does survival data tell us about long term viability? At BiofuelCircle, each biomass bank is structured as a standalone rural enterprise operating on sound commercial fundamentals. Typically, these units require an investment of around Rs 3 crore and generate annual revenues of approximately Rs 3 to Rs 4 crore. Over the past three years, we have established close to 70 such biomass banks, forming a robust rural enterprise network within the biomass value chain. The earliest batch of around ten units has already reached profitability, while the next set of about twenty-five is steadily moving in that direction. Current trends indicate that most units turn EBITDA positive within 12 to 18 months and recover capital investment within three to four years. While none have yet completed a full lifecycle, early performance signals are encouraging, pointing to a viable and scalable rural enterprise model. In addition to financial returns, these ventures generate employment and formalise markets for agricultural residues. From an energy security perspective, can decentralized bioenergy realistically de risk national supply chains, or is its contribution still marginal compared to fossil infrastructure? Decentralised bioenergy should be seen as a complementary pillar within the broader energy mix, rather than a replacement for fossil fuels. Even with optimal utilisation of biomass resources, it is likely to meet around 10 to 12 percent of national energy demand in the medium term, particularly as overall consumption continues to grow. That said, its role in strengthening energy security is significant. By reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels and diversifying energy sources, bioenergy contributes to greater resilience. When combined with renewables like solar and wind, it enhances supply stability. In India, this shift is already underway, with initiatives such as ethanol blending and increasing adoption of compressed biogas across mobility and industrial sectors. Feedstock aggregation is often the weakest link in bio circular systems. How do you prevent supply fragmentation, seasonal volatility and price distortions in agricultural residue markets? The challenge of fragmentation can be addressed by treating biomass as part of an organised, nationwide market rather than isolated local supply chains. Strong supply systems require visibility into demand and supply, transparent pricing mechanisms, stable market signals and clearly defined quality benchmarks. At BiofuelCircle, we are building this ecosystem through a digital biomass marketplace that connects farmers, aggregators and industrial buyers on a unified platform. This enables transparent price discovery, structured transactions and data-led supply planning, which together help reduce volatility and improve reliability. Additionally, we leverage GIS and GPS based intelligence to map crop patterns, farmland and residue availability, enabling more efficient planning of aggregation and logistics infrastructure. Carbon credits and sustainability premiums are often cited as revenue boosters. If carbon markets soften or compliance rules tighten, does the circular model still hold up financially? Carbon credits and sustainability incentives should be viewed as supplementary gains rather than the core foundation of the business. Overdependence on such mechanisms introduces uncertainty and weakens the economic structure. Our approach is to ensure that bioenergy products are cost competitive with traditional fuels through efficient supply chains and operations. When this baseline is achieved, the business remains financially sound on its own merit. Carbon credits and similar incentives then serve as an added advantage, rewarding environmental impact, but not determining viability. The primary focus remains on building a resilient and efficient biomass ecosystem that supports large-scale adoption. What are the hidden risks such as methane leakage, soil nutrient imbalance, or over extraction of biomass that could undermine the environmental case for a closed loop system? The sustainability of the circular model depends on staying aligned with its core principle, which is utilising agricultural residue and waste rather than cultivating dedicated energy crops. When biomass is sourced from existing waste streams, the environmental benefits remain intact, as it prevents open burning and adds value to otherwise unused material. However, shifting toward purpose-grown energy crops could alter this balance by diverting land, water and other resources away from food production. Maintaining a clear distinction between waste utilisation and crop cultivation is therefore essential to preserving environmental integrity and ensuring that bioenergy remains a responsible waste-to-energy solution. Institutionally, who owns the value chain: farmers, cooperatives, private processors, or energy majors? And how does governance determine whether wealth is retained locally or extracted upward? The bioenergy value chain is inherently collaborative, involving multiple stakeholders rather than being controlled by a single entity. Farmers provide the raw biomass, local enterprises handle aggregation and processing, technology players enable conversion, and industries consume the final energy output. Ownership structures can differ across segments, ranging from cooperatives to private companies and large industrial players. What matters most is building an ecosystem where value creation and distribution are balanced across participants. Farmers play a foundational role, but the system also depends on investments in infrastructure, logistics and technology. Much like other large industries, such as pharmaceuticals or energy, effective coordination across the supply chain is key to ensuring both efficiency and equitable value distribution. If you had to choose one metric to prove the model works, income uplift, emission reduction, fuel substitution, or soil health, what would it be? The most definitive measure of success is the extent to which bioenergy replaces fossil fuels. Large-scale fuel substitution indicates that the system is functioning efficiently and delivering real impact. As bioenergy displaces conventional fuels, it naturally leads to multiple positive outcomes, including lower emissions, higher farmer incomes through residue monetisation and improved waste management practices. In that sense, fuel substitution serves as the central indicator, with other benefits emerging as natural outcomes of a well-established ecosystem. It also reflects the sector’s contribution to the broader energy transition, supported by developments such as ethanol blending and increased use of compressed biogas across industries and transport. -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3677/from-fish-and-chips-to-butter-chicken-how-india-and-uk-are-rediscovering-each-others-food-cultures.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3677/from-fish-and-chips-to-butter-chicken-how-india-and-uk-are-rediscovering-each-others-food-cultures.html Tue, 07 Apr 2026 13:36:32 +0530 A quiet but telling shift is underway in global food curiosity—and it is playing out not in restaurants, but in search bars New research by Cargo Force ( https://www.cargoforce.com/ ) reveals a sharp rise in online searches for British foods in India, pointing to a growing cultural openness and evolving taste preferences. At the same time, British consumers continue to show an enduring—and expanding—love for Indian cuisine. Together, these parallel trends signal something deeper than fleeting curiosity: A two-way culinary exchange that reflects globalisation, digital influence, and shifting food identities. India’s Growing Curiosity for British Cuisine The data shows that Indian consumers are increasingly exploring British food, with search volumes revealing both nostalgia-driven interest and openness to new flavours. At the top of the list are custard (27,000 monthly searches) and semolina (24,000)—two foods that are not entirely foreign to Indian kitchens. Their popularity suggests familiarity rather than novelty, hinting at shared culinary overlaps shaped by history and adaptation. Custard, for instance, has long been integrated into Indian desserts, while semolina (sooji/rava) is a staple across Indian households. However, the list quickly expands into distinctly British territory. Cadbury Dairy Milk (10,000), a globally recognised chocolate brand with deep roots in both the UK and India, ranks third, bridging the gap between local consumption and international branding. Further down, iconic British dishes such as fish and chips (6,400), scones (4,500), and trifle (3,800) point to a growing willingness among Indian consumers to explore traditional UK fare beyond what is already familiar. Even everyday staples like gravy (3,300), snacks such as Maltesers (3,300), and baked goods including digestive biscuits (3,100) and shortbread (2,200) are drawing attention. Together, these search patterns suggest that Indian consumers are not just dabbling in British cuisine—they are engaging with it across categories, from desserts to main meals to pantry staples. Sweet Tooth Leads the Way A closer look at the data reveals a clear trend: sweet and comfort foods dominate Indian searches for British cuisine. Custard, semolina, Cadbury Dairy Milk, trifle, Maltesers, digestive biscuits, and shortbread collectively account for a large share of interest. This reflects a broader consumer psychology—people tend to explore new cuisines through familiar entry points, and desserts often serve as that gateway. There is also a strong emotional dimension. Foods like custard and semolina are associated with childhood, home cooking, and comfort. Their popularity suggests that Indian consumers are not merely experimenting with foreign cuisine but are gravitating toward foods that evoke warmth and nostalgia. This overlap between familiarity and novelty is critical. It lowers the barrier to entry, making British cuisine more approachable and less intimidating. The Appeal of British Comfort Classics Beyond sweets, the data shows a steady interest in traditional British comfort foods. RankFoodIndia Monthly Searches1Custard27,0002Semolina24,0003Cadbury Dairy Milk10,0004Fish and Chips6,4005Scones4,500 Fish and chips, often considered the UK’s most iconic dish, is attracting significant attention with 6,400 searches. Its appeal may lie in its simplicity—deep-fried fish paired with potatoes is not far removed from Indian culinary preferences, where fried foods are widely popular. Similarly, scones and shortbread reflect a growing curiosity about British baking traditions. These items are increasingly featured in cafes and bakeries across urban India, suggesting that offline exposure may be reinforcing online interest. Meanwhile, the presence of gravy (3,300 searches) indicates interest in the broader structure of British meals. Unlike Indian gravies, which are often rich and spiced, British gravies are typically simpler, meat-based, and used as accompaniments. The curiosity here may stem from a desire to understand these differences and experiment with them at home. Digital Media as a Culinary Catalyst One of the most significant drivers behind this trend is the role of digital platforms. According to Cargo Force’s logistics expert Asad Mirza, cultural curiosity is being fuelled by global media, online recipes, and social platforms. Food content—from YouTube tutorials to Instagram reels and cooking blogs—has made it easier than ever for people to discover, learn, and recreate international dishes. Streaming platforms and television shows also play a role. British baking competitions, cooking shows, and travel documentaries introduce audiences to dishes like scones, trifle, and roast dinners, often sparking interest that translates into online searches. Importantly, the rise of e-commerce and improved logistics means that ingredients once considered hard to find are now more accessible. This reduces friction between curiosity and action, allowing consumers to move from searching to cooking with relative ease. A Mirror Trend: Britain’s Love Affair with Indian Food While India is exploring British cuisine, the reverse trend is even more pronounced—and more deeply rooted. RankFoodIndia Monthly Searches1Chicken Tikka Masala43,0002Butter Chicken41,0003Paratha38,0004Biryani31,0005Roti30,000 Search data from the UK shows overwhelming interest in Indian food, with chicken tikka masala (43,000 searches) and butter chicken (41,000) leading the list by a significant margin. These dishes, rich in flavour and adapted to British tastes over decades, have become staples of the UK’s culinary landscape. But the data goes beyond these well-known favourites. Traditional Indian breads such as paratha (38,000), roti (30,000), and chapati (24,000) are also highly searched, indicating a deeper engagement with Indian cuisine beyond restaurant staples. Street foods like pani puri (25,000) and regional dishes such as dosa (19,000) suggest that British consumers are increasingly curious about the diversity of Indian food. Even desserts like gulab jamun (21,000) are gaining traction, pointing to a growing appreciation for Indian sweets. From Colonial Legacy to Culinary Exchange The relationship between Indian and British cuisines is historically complex, shaped by colonial interactions and migration. However, what is emerging now is less about legacy and more about exchange. In the UK, Indian food has long been mainstream, supported by a large diaspora and decades of cultural integration. In India, however, British cuisine has not enjoyed the same level of presence—until now. The current rise in interest suggests a shift. Instead of being perceived as bland or unfamiliar, British food is being rediscovered through a modern lens—one shaped by global media, evolving tastes, and increased exposure. The Economics of Curiosity These search trends also have economic implications. For food brands, restaurants, and retailers, rising curiosity translates into opportunity. British food brands can tap into the Indian market by positioning their products as both novel and accessible. At the same time, Indian brands can leverage the UK’s sustained interest in their cuisine to expand offerings and innovate. Logistics companies like Cargo Force are also likely to benefit, as increased cross-border demand for food products drives the need for efficient supply chains. Moreover, the growing interest in cooking at home—accelerated by the pandemic—has created a market for ingredients, recipes, and ready-to-cook kits that cater to international cuisines. What This Means for the Future of Food The data points to a broader trend: the globalisation of taste is becoming more nuanced. Consumers are no longer satisfied with surface-level exposure to international cuisines. They are digging deeper—exploring traditional recipes, regional variations, and cultural contexts. This is evident in the UK’s interest in items like pani puri and dosa, as well as India’s curiosity about dishes like trifle and fish and chips. At the same time, the blending of cuisines is likely to accelerate. Fusion dishes, cross-cultural adaptations, and hybrid menus are becoming more common, reflecting the interconnected nature of modern food culture. Conclusion: A Two-Way Culinary Conversation The rise in searches for British foods in India—and the sustained demand for Indian cuisine in the UK—highlights a two-way culinary conversation that is gaining momentum. For India, this marks a shift toward greater openness and experimentation, driven by digital access and evolving consumer preferences. For the UK, it reinforces the deep-rooted influence of Indian cuisine while pointing to an appetite for further exploration. Ultimately, these trends are about more than food. They reflect changing identities, increased cultural exchange, and a world where curiosity travels as fast as data. In the age of the internet, the journey from “What is trifle?” to “How do I make it?” is just a few clicks away—and that journey is reshaping how cultures connect, one dish at a time. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3671/from-ocean-to-acre-kelp-blues-big-bet-on-seaweed-powered-agriculture.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3671/from-ocean-to-acre-kelp-blues-big-bet-on-seaweed-powered-agriculture.html Thu, 02 Apr 2026 11:40:35 +0530 Kishan Kaujalgi and Anouk Bosman discuss scaling offshore kelp farming, driving farmer ROI, and building a resilient, sustainable input ecosystem In an exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Kishan Kaujalgi, India Lead, and Anouk Bosman, Head of Marketing at Kelp Blue, reveal how the company is pioneering large-scale offshore cultivation of Macrocystis pyrifera to solve one of agriculture’s biggest challenges: consistent, sustainable raw material supply. They highlight how ocean farming mirrors land agriculture in complexity—navigating storms, pests, and yield optimization—while eliminating the need for irrigation and chemical inputs. At the core of their model is a sustainability-first approach, harvesting just 10 per cent of kelp biomass to preserve biodiversity and enable carbon sequestration, while still ensuring commercial scalability. Their flagship biostimulant, StimBlue+, stands out for its cultivated origin, consistent performance, and strong ROI, delivering higher yields at lower application rates across diverse crops. Looking ahead, they position ocean-based agriculture as a transformative pillar of the global food system—unlocking scalable, carbon-negative solutions without competing for land or freshwater. Scaling Ocean-Based Agriculture  Kelp Blue operates large-scale offshore cultivation systems—what were the key technological and ecological challenges in scaling seaweed farming in open ocean conditions?  A major barrier to scaling the seaweed industry globally is the lack of a reliable and consistent supply of raw material. At Kelp Blue, this is precisely the challenge we are addressing through the development of a stable, offshore cultivation system. We cultivate Macrocystis pyrifera - Giant Kelp - on large-scale, offshore structures. Because this type of farming had never been implemented at this scale in open ocean conditions, it required significant engineering innovation.   Kelp Blue champions organic and sustainable agriculture through a unique “farmers-to-farmers” philosophy – connecting ocean farmers with land farmers. Our products are derived from kelp cultivated in the ocean, creating a natural bridge between marine and terrestrial agriculture.  In essence, farming in the ocean shares the same fundamental principles as farming on land: nurturing a crop under variable conditions, protecting it from natural stressors, and maximizing sustainable yield. The main difference is that ocean farming doesn’t require irrigation or chemical inputs, we let the kelp grow naturally, simply monitoring the farms regularly to ensure healthy development, and our “field” is the open ocean, which adds layers of engineering complexity but doesn’t change the core challenges of agriculture.  Sustainability as a Core Business Model  Harvesting only 10 per cent of the biomass is a deliberate choice—how do you balance ecological preservation with commercial viability at scale?  Our underwater kelp forests are about 15 meters tall. In our harvesting approach, we deliberately trim only the top 10 per cent of the kelp - essentially the young, nutrient-rich shoots that are most effective for biostimulants. The majority of the biomass remains in the water, supporting marine biodiversity (+800 species detected through eDNA technology) and carbon sequestration.  This approach allows us to balance ecological preservation with commercial viability. By leaving most of the kelp (biomass) intact, we maintain healthy, resilient ecosystems, while the carefully managed harvest ensures a stable, traceable supply for our customers. With licensed cultivation areas exceeding 6,000 hectares, we ensure a stable and traceable supply for our customers with controlled margin inflation.   Differentiation in the Biostimulant Market  With increasing competition in biological inputs, what makes StimBlue+ structurally different in terms of efficacy, consistency, and scalability?  With the rapid growth of Biostimulants in India, farmers today are more conscious about performance, consistency, and return on investment. StimBlue+ is built on a simple and practical principle: delivering visible results and a clear return on investment for the Indian farmers.   A fundamental point of differentiation is that StimBlue+ is based on cultivated Macrocystis pyrifera, rather than wild-harvested seaweed. This allows us to offer a consistent, traceable, and scalable raw material supply, independent of seasonal or environmental variability. The result is a product with stable composition and performance, which is critical for Asian farmers making input decisions.  In terms of efficacy, StimBlue+ supports a well-regulated transition between vegetative and generative growth phases, integrating seamlessly into existing farming programs. While many seaweed-based biostimulants are positioned around specific use cases - such as root development (commonly associated with Ecklonia) or abiotic stress management (often linked to Ascophyllum) - StimBlue+ delivers performance across multiple stages of the crop cycle, making it suitable for a wide range of crops grown in India & Asia.   It is also highly concentrated, consistently demonstrating strong results at lower application rates. In third-party trials, StimBlue+ has outperformed comparable seaweed-based biostimulants at half the dosage (0.4L/acre versus 0.8L/acre), directly improving per acre profitability which is a key differentiating-factor for Indian growers.  Finally, our mechanical extraction process ensures high miscibility, allowing StimBlue+ to mix easily with other inputs in standard farming programs. This contrasts with more traditional alkaline extraction methods, which can limit compatibility and create additional complexity or cost for farmers.  Together, these elements : cultivated origin, consistent quality, strong efficacy at low dosage, and ease of integration, makes StimBlue+ stand out as a reliable and farmer friendly solution in India’s evolving Biostimulant market.  Science and Mode of Action  Macrocystis pyrifera is rich in bioactive compounds—how do you translate this biological complexity into predictable, measurable outcomes for farmers?  Each crop is extensively trialled against key performance indicators such as yield and quality, under clearly defined conditions - including soil type, season, weather, and application parameters. This ensures that the results we communicate are not only scientifically grounded but also directly relevant and reproducible for farmers.  In parallel, we run an Ambassador Farm Program, working with influential farmers across different regions who trial and use our biostimulants under real commercial conditions. This allows us to complement controlled trials with practical, farmer-led insights, creating a robust body of evidence that reflects real-world performance.  By combining scientific trials with on-farm validation, we turn the natural complexity of Macrocystis pyrifera into clear, reliable, and actionable outcomes that farmers can trust.   Carbon Neutrality and Climate Positioning  You position the product as carbon-neutral—how do you quantify and validate this claim, and what role does carbon accounting play in your business model?  As our kelp grows in the ocean, it naturally absorbs CO2 from the surrounding waters through photosynethsis. Some of this carbon is exported to the deep ocean, where it remains sequestered for long time periods.   As we only harvest the canopy of the underwater kelp forests (which is more or less the top 1m that re-grows quickly) to produce our biostimulant StimBlue+. The rest of the kelp individual continues to grow and contribute to carbon sequestration.  Independent measurement and verification of our 2024 operations validated that the carbon sequestered by our kelp farm exceeds the total CO2 emissions associated with producing our biostimulant. So, producing our products, results in more carbon being removed from the atmosphere than is emitted.  Our 2024 performance was measured by atdepth, a Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) provider specialised in ocean carbon measurement. Our Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and relevant reports were verified by independent parties including Boundless Impact and EcoEngineers. This was part of our participation as a Top 20 Finalist in the XPRIZE for Carbon Removal.   Farmer Adoption and ROI  Biostimulants often face adoption barriers—how do you demonstrate clear economic returns to growers across diverse crops and geographies?  Adoption of biostimulants ultimately comes down to one question for farmers: does it deliver a clear and reliable return on investment? At Kelp Blue, we address this by grounding every claim in robust, science-backed evidence.  We invest heavily in independent, third-party trials conducted by contract research organizations (CROs) across different crops, geographies, and growing conditions. These trials don’t just measure agronomic performance such as yield and quality—they also quantify the economic return per hectare, based on real farm gate prices at the time of harvest. Importantly, these calculations are fully transparent and shared with our partners and customers.  The results consistently demonstrate strong economic value. For example, in berries, applications at 0.8L/acre have shown average yield increases of 17 per cent, translating into approximately $2,710 in additional revenue per hectare. In vineyards, we see average yield increases of 13 per cent, corresponding to around $5,190 per hectare. In vegetables, average yield improvements of 12 per cent result in roughly $4,125 additional revenue per hectare.  Another thing, is product range offering choice to farmers. In Indian context, we offer StimBlue+ Amino, Humic, Nutritional; also Seed treatment, Drip & Foliar grades. In addition, specific extracts with Alginic acid & Mannitol derived from seaweeds having wide application across multiple crops in Asia. To be noted, some of these grades also fall under the local regulations.   Integration with Conventional Agriculture  Do you see products like StimBlue+ as complementary to traditional agrochemicals, or is the long-term vision to replace them entirely?  StimBlue+ is designed to complement , not replace, traditional agrochemicals. It does not substitute nutrient fertilizers, but works alongside them to improve their overall efficiency. By enhancing nutrient uptake and utilization, it helps ensure that the inputs farmers are already applying are more effectively absorbed by the plant.  This has two key benefits: it reduces input waste and increases the return on existing investments, translating into both financial and operational gains for growers. Rather than requiring a complete shift in farming practices, StimBlue+ integrates seamlessly into current programs, making adoption straightforward and low-risk.  Over the long term, we see biostimulants playing an increasingly important role in optimizing input use and improving sustainability in agriculture. The goal is not necessarily full replacement, but smarter, more efficient systems where conventional inputs are used more effectively and, where possible, in reduced quantities.  Global Expansion and Ocean Economy Potential  Looking ahead, how do you see ocean-based biomass platforms shaping the future of agriculture and sustainable inputs on a global scale?  The ocean offers a vast, underutilized resource that can be harnessed without competing for arable land, freshwater, or traditional inputs.  Our vision is to establish large-scale kelp farms across multiple continents – where cold, nutrient-rich waters allow for optimal growth. This localized approach enables us to produce biomass close to end markets, reducing supply chain complexity and environmental impact, while ensuring reliable and scalable supply.  At the same time, these kelp farms contribute to the regeneration of marine ecosystems. Kelp acts as an ecosystem engineer, creating habitats, supporting biodiversity, and capturing carbon. By combining production with restoration, ocean-based agriculture has the potential to deliver both economic value and environmental impact at scale.  Ultimately, we believe this model can become a cornerstone of the emerging ocean economy, providing a new, sustainable pathway for producing the inputs needed to feed a growing global population.  --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3665/hormuz-effect-when-energy-fertilizer-and-food-collide.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3665/hormuz-effect-when-energy-fertilizer-and-food-collide.html Wed, 01 Apr 2026 12:39:54 +0530 FAO Chief Economist Máximo Torero warns of cascading impacts on energy, fertilizer supply, and global food systems as tanker traffic collapses and shipping risks surge The ongoing disruption to the Strait of Hormuz has emerged as a major shock to global commodity flows, with implications for energy, agriculture, and food security. According to Máximo Torero of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, tanker traffic through the corridor has dropped by more than 90 percent within days of the escalation. The strait typically carries around 20 million barrels of oil per day—about 35 percent of global crude flows—along with significant volumes of liquefied natural gas and fertilizers. Speaking at a United Nations briefing, Torero described the situation as a systemic shock affecting global food systems, not just energy markets. He highlighted the Gulf region’s role in supplying nearly half of global sulfur, a key input in phosphate fertilizer production. Disruptions to sulfur flows could impact fertilizer output worldwide, including in major agricultural economies. Shipping challenges have intensified due to surging war-risk insurance premiums, with recovery expected to take months even if tensions ease. Systemic Shock Transmission To what extent does the disruption of the Strait of Hormuz represent a new class of systemic risk, where energy, fertilizer, and food supply chains converge into a single point of failure? The Strait of Hormuz is the world’s most concentrated chokepoint for simultaneously disrupting energy, fertilizer, sulfur, and agrifood systems. Under normal conditions, it carries roughly 20 million barrels of oil per day (one‑quarter of global seaborne oil), one‑fifth of global LNG, and up to 30 percent of internationally traded fertilizers. The current conflict has collapsed tanker traffic by more than 90 percent within days, stalling an estimated 3–4 million tonnes of fertilizer trade per month. What makes this a new class of systemic risk is the convergence of three interdependent chains: Energy – oil and gas prices spiked 20–35 percent (Brent) and 50–75 percent (European gas). Fertilizer – no strategic reserves exist; urea prices rose 19 percent in one week. Sulfur – essential to produce phosphate fertilizer. Food – Gulf countries import 70–90 percent of their food, and import‑dependent nations face immediate yield threats. Because natural gas is the feedstock for nitrogen fertilizers, and sulfur (half of global trade passes through Hormuz) is essential for phosphate processing, a single disruption simultaneously raises fuel costs, fertilizer prices, and transport expenses. The FAO notes that “there are no large strategic fertilizer reserves comparable to oil stocks,” so any sustained interruption quickly elevates global food inflation. This convergence turns a maritime chokepoint into a single point of failure for the entire agrifood value chain. Fragility vs. Resilience of Globalization Does this crisis fundamentally challenge the assumption that globalized agricultural supply chains are efficiency‑maximizing, but structurally fragile in the face of geopolitical shocks? Global supply chains are needed to assure all countries have access to the diversity of food that is required and to use our natural resources optimally. Although it is true that on the inputs there are shock points  that increase the risks for global supply chains but will be the same for local supply chains. The FAO analysis shows that the current globalized system delivered low costs and just‑in‑time efficiency in peacetime, but the Hormuz disruption exposes its structural fragility. Within days, a conflict in one region removed a quarter of global oil trade, one‑third of fertilizer trade, and a major share of food demand from the Gulf. The document highlights that the Gulf States’ high import dependency (70–90 percent for staples) was sustainable only when trade routes were open. Once the strait closed, their strategic grain reserves (4–6 months) became a finite buffer, not a solution. Similarly, fertilizer‑importing countries like Bangladesh (53 percent Gulf dependency) and Kenya ( 40 percent ) face immediate shortages with no alternative supply chain ready. The FAO’s modeling of a “policy inaction baseline” shows that without coordinated intervention, real household income in Gulf countries could decline 14–18 percent, and global cereal producer income could drop nearly 5 percent. This is not a temporary inefficiency; it is a structural vulnerability built into efficiency‑maximized, highly concentrated supply chains. The crisis therefore challenges the assumption that globalization’s benefits automatically outweigh its geopolitical risks. Fertilizer Dependency Trap Given the heavy reliance on energy‑linked fertilizers, are we approaching a structural ceiling in yield growth, where input dependency itself becomes the primary constraint on global food security? The evidence points toward a growing constraint, not yet a hard ceiling, but dangerously close in many regions. Nitrogen fertilizers are produced from natural gas, and the Persian Gulf is a low‑cost producer. When energy prices spike, fertilizer prices follow directly. The FAO estimates that if the crisis continues, global fertilizer prices could average 15–20 percent higher in the first half of 2026. The “dependency trap” operates through three mechanisms: Cost‑driven reduction – Farmers facing high prices apply less fertilizer, reducing yields. No strategic reserves – Unlike oil, there is no global fertilizer stockpile to smooth shocks. Nonlinear yield response – In low‑input systems (e.g., sub‑Saharan Africa at ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3649/why-india-why-now-global-spotlight-on-sugarcane-transformation.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3649/why-india-why-now-global-spotlight-on-sugarcane-transformation.html Tue, 24 Mar 2026 12:22:31 +0530 Exclusive AgroSpectrum interview with Manisha Majumdar, on why India is reshaping the global sugarcane narrative In an exclusive interview with AgroSpectrum, Manisha Majumdar, Head APAC, Bonsucro, explains why India’s scale as the world’s second-largest sugar producer, combined with its rapid shift toward ethanol and bio-based industries, makes this a pivotal moment to spotlight the country globally. She highlights how regions like Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, and Karnataka are not only production hubs but also emerging centers of sustainability innovation, supporting millions of smallholder farmers. Manisha emphasizes that India must transition from a volume-driven sugar economy to a climate-resilient, sustainability-led value chain through diversification, water efficiency, and regenerative agriculture. She underscores that credible certification systems such as Bonsucro are becoming strategic tools to ensure traceability, meet global ESG norms, and unlock premium markets while strengthening India’s climate narrative amid ethanol expansion. Looking ahead to 2030, she concludes that aligning policy, finance, and global buyer commitments will be critical to positioning India as a model for climate-smart, inclusive, and competitive sugarcane production. Why India, Why Now? India is the world’s second-largest sugar producer. What makes this the right moment for Bonsucro to spotlight India on the global stage, and what signal does choosing New Delhi in the future send to international markets? Sugarcane production supports the livelihoods of around 50 million farmers in India including a large number of smallholders, making it critical to rural development, food security and climate resilience across the key producing regions of Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and Karnataka. For Bonsucro, India is an important region, and our footprint has grown steadily over the years. Many members stand out for their pioneering activities like investments in regenerative agriculture, strengthening youth and women leadership and championing practices that reduce water use among others. As well as scale, India is emerging as a leader in innovation and transformation, with many of its 500+ sugar mills evolving beyond traditional sugar production, to process ethanol for biofuels, putting India on the stage as a key player helping to shape the future of sugarcane and bio-based industries. From Output to Outcomes India has traditionally been a volume-driven sugar economy. What structural shifts are needed to reposition sugarcane from a production-centric crop to a sustainability-led, climate-resilient value chain? The sugar economy in India has long been volume driven. For the sector to operate more sustainably, shifts that focus on aligning policy, markets, technology and sustainability standards that demonstrate environmental and social performance are essential. For example, diversification of income streams through ethanol, bioenergy or sustainable aviation fuels would enable mills to optimise the whole sugarcane value chain rather than focusing on sugar output alone, and leading to less waste, more resource efficiency and emissions reductions. When it comes to natural resources, sugarcane is a water-intensive crop, which is a strain on the environment. Changes like scaling drip irrigation or incentivising soil health and regenerative agriculture practices can make production more efficient. Bonsucro member EID Parry recently launched a project in Southern India supported by the Bonsucro Impact Fund to train a network of rural entrepreneurs to help farmers rebuild their soils. The project combines technology, using a mobile app to monitor soil health, with regenerative practices that test the use of crop residues, press mud and green manure to boost soil carbon, cut fertiliser use and improve yields, with ambitious but achievable expected outcomes that can be scaled to reach more farmers. Supply chain traceability and credible certification systems like Bonsucro are central to supporting alignment with emerging ESG and due diligence requirements in global markets with certified mills and producers being able to better access international markets and prove their compliance. Standards as Strategic Tools to Access Premium Buyers and Align with ESG Protocols How can sustainability standards and certification frameworks move beyond compliance to become competitive tools that enhance market access, price realization, and global credibility for Indian sugar exports? In order to move beyond compliance, sustainability standards and certification frameworks need to demonstrate impact and value. They must strengthen traceability, provide verified sustainability data, as well as enable credible impact and due diligence claims that align with global frameworks and ultimately build trust with international markets and buyers. As a metric standard, the Bonsucro Production Standard and its suite of climate tools support sugarcane producers in demonstrating their social and environmental performance and provide buyers with the assurance that the products they purchase meet their needs. Ethanol Expansion & Climate Credentials With India rapidly scaling ethanol blending, how critical is credible sustainability certification in ensuring that biofuel expansion strengthens — rather than weakens — India’s climate narrative? India’s expansion of ethanol blending presents a significant opportunity to support energy security and climate goals, but it’s essential that the growth is coupled with strong guardrails that ensure the ethanol comes from sustainably produced sources. India has successfully achieved its target of blending 20 per cent ethanol with petrol (E20) five years ahead of schedule and the country's ongoing biofuel blending efforts have contributed significantly to reducing carbon dioxide emissions and conserving financial resources. Nonetheless, concerns remain regarding the diversion of food crops, prompting discussions about the issue of "food versus fuel." Therefore, to maintain domestic and international confidence, the programme is now focusing on its sustainability credentials, addressing concerns regarding water consumption, food security, and technical compatibility. Certification serves as a key mechanism for demonstrating that production processes yield genuine climate benefits and prevent unintended environmental or social consequences. Standards such as Bonsucro’s EU RED-recognised certification provide a practical pathway for producers to verify emissions performance, traceability, and responsible production practices. When implemented, this certification supports compliance for exports to the EU and strengthens confidence among international buyers and investors, which ultimately reinforces India’s climate narrative by demonstrating its ethanol production is aligned with global sustainability expectations. Water, Carbon & Traceability Sugarcane is often criticised for its water footprint. How can measurement, data transparency, and traceability systems help India demonstrate real improvements in water efficiency and carbon performance? Bonsucro is leveraging digital tools, satellite monitoring, and farm-level data systems to enable sugarcane producers to track water use and carbon performance with increasing precision, often in near-real-time. These technological advancements facilitate the monitoring of environmental, social, and economic sustainability across the sugarcane supply chain. Being able to understand and measure water and other resource use is essential to show what concrete improvements are happening and for highlighting where changes need to be made. Linking this data to traceable supply chains helps demonstrate measurable progress over time. Certification systems like Bonsucro provide a framework for verifying this data and translating it into credible sustainability claims. The latest data shows that Bonsucro certified farms reduce water us by 31 per cent on average over five years of certification. Satellite data is used to map sugarcane fields and monitor growth. This helps estimate water requirements, identify water logging or drought, and monitor biomass, which is used for carbon calculations. The use of these digital tools helps farmers shift towards practices that manage water scarcity and reduce carbon emissions in India, a critical step considering that sugarcane is a major water user in states like Maharashtra. Smallholder Inclusion India’s sugar economy is dominated by millions of smallholder farmers. What models has Bonsucro seen globally that successfully integrate smallholders into certified supply chains without imposing prohibitive compliance costs? India already stands out globally for the sheer scale of its certified farming base, with a large and diverse network of growers engaged in sustainability standards across the sugarcane sector. This matters in a country where production is dominated by smallholders, for whom certification can otherwise feel complex and costly. Group certification models have proven particularly effective in this context. By enabling sugar mills to support and coordinate networks of farmers under a single certification framework, these models reduce compliance costs and administrative burdens for individual smallholders. Mills play a central role in providing training, data collection and technical assistance, while farmers benefit from shared systems and collective progress. This approach can accelerate certification uptake and strengthens long term relationships between mills and farming communities, making sustainability more accessible and scalable across India’s sugarcane landscape. Bonsucro takes two approaches: we introduced our first Production Standard for Smallholder Farmers in 2018, adapting the original Bonsucro Production Standard to facilitate collecting data on a smaller scale and thereby reducing implementation costs and making certification more accessible. Context can vary between regions which is why it’s important to tailor the approach and develop collective efforts from the whole supply chain. Bonsucro is currently in the process of revising its Production Standard for Smallholder Farmers and the draft standard is open for public consultation. Through the Bonsucro Impact Fund we also invest in initiatives on the ground to support smallholders on their sustainability journey. Trade & Carbon Border Mechanisms As global markets move toward carbon border adjustments and stricter ESG-linked import norms, how exposed is India’s sugar sector — and how can proactive certification future-proof exports? India’s sugar sector is becoming increasingly exposed to evolving global trade rules that link market access to climate and sustainability performance. While sugar itself is not currently a priority commodity under the EU Deforestation Regulation, the introduction of EUDR sends a clear signal about the direction of travel for agricultural supply chains more broadly. Alongside expanding ESG disclosure and due diligence requirements in major markets, expectations around traceability, land use transparency and carbon reporting are rising rapidly. Together, these trends are reshaping how sustainability performance is assessed and communicated, increasing the strategic importance for sugar producing countries like India to demonstrate credible, verifiable progress across environmental and social dimensions. In this context, proactive certification can play an important future-proofing role. Standards such as Bonsucro provide verified data on emissions, land use, and supply chain traceability, helping producers demonstrate alignment with emerging sustainability requirements and meet the expectations of international buyers and regulators. By adopting credible certification and transparent data systems early, India’s sugar sector can position itself ahead of regulatory shifts, protecting export competitiveness while strengthening its reputation as a responsible and climate-aligned supplier in global markets. Financing the Transition Can sustainability certification unlock preferential finance, green bonds, or blended capital for Indian mills and farmer cooperatives? Are lenders beginning to price climate performance into sugar value chains? Yes, we have seen that certification can unlock sustainable finance in various markets. As lenders and investors place greater emphasis on ESG performance, they are looking for credible and verifiable data on emissions, resource use, and supply chain practices. Certification systems like Bonsucro provide exactly that - independent verification that mills and farmer groups meet recognised sustainability benchmarks. This can support access to preferential finance mechanisms, including sustainability-linked loans, green bonds, and blended finance facilities, where terms are linked to environmental performance indicators such as emissions reductions or water efficiency. Development banks and private lenders are increasingly exploring these models in agriculture, particularly where certification provides trusted performance metrics. Bonsucro certification can support certified mills in India with this, but the vast majority currently operate without being able to independently prove sustainability performance. The 2030 Vision Looking ahead to 2030, what would define success for India’s sugarcane transition — and what must industry, policymakers, and global buyers do today to ensure sugarcane becomes a model for climate-smart agriculture? By 2030, success for India’s sugarcane transition would mean moving beyond a production-driven model to one where productivity, climate resilience, and sustainability performance go hand in hand. This would include measurable reductions in water intensity, verified lower carbon emissions per tonne of cane, and a growing share of mills participating in traceable and certified supply chains. It would also mean a more diversified value chain, where sugarcane supports not only sugar production but also ethanol, bioenergy, and other bio-based products, helping strengthen India’s energy transition while improving the overall economics of the crop. We are already seeing this through Bonsucro’s members, with many of India’s 524 sugar mills already evolving beyond the traditional sugar production. Achieving this will require coordinated action, with industry investment in climate-smart farming practices and efficient irrigation amongst other things, policymakers aligning incentives with resource efficiency and low-carbon production, and global buyers recognising and rewarding sustainability performance through long-term sourcing commitments and support for standards such as Bonsucro. If these pieces come together, sugarcane could become a strong example of how a major commodity sector can combine farmer livelihoods, climate action, and global market competitiveness. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agropsectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3648/regulatory-win-positions-bioprime-for-scale.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3648/regulatory-win-positions-bioprime-for-scale.html Mon, 23 Mar 2026 12:36:56 +0530 Renuka Diwan, Co-Founder & Chief Executive Officer, BioPrime AgriSolutions, says full portfolio approval marks a shift from regulatory clearance to scalable growth and stronger market credibility In an exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Renuka Diwan, highlights that securing regulatory approval for its entire biostimulant portfolio marks a major strategic milestone for the company. She emphasizes that this achievement validates BioPrime’s strong scientific foundation and positions it ahead in an increasingly regulated and competitive biologicals market. The company differentiates itself through proprietary bioactive compounds and a science-led approach, avoiding commoditization. With approvals in place, BioPrime is now focused on expanding in India while building global partnerships and demonstrating clear return on investment for farmers. Looking ahead, the company aims to drive innovation in next-generation biologicals, including biofungicides and climate-resilient agricultural solutions. Regulatory Breakthrough as Strategic Inflection Your full portfolio has now secured regulatory approval across biostimulant categories. Beyond compliance, how does this milestone fundamentally change BioPrime’s competitive positioning in India’s fast-evolving biologicals market? India has established a substantial and evolving agriculture regulatory ecosystem, characterized by a mix of long-standing, tradition-based regulations, modern digital initiatives and specialized agencies aimed at ensuring food security, safety, sustainability and technology adoption. For BioPrime to secure approvals for our biostimulant portfolio in this stringent and robust regulatory environment, is more than just compliance – it is a strategic validation of the science behind our innovations. The fact that our entire portfolio has secured the requisite approvals demonstrates that our products meet the desired standards for characterization, efficacy and safety. This milestone creates a clear differentiation. While the market has historically witnessed a large number of loosely defined products, the new regulatory ecosystem favours companies that have invested in scientific rigour and product validation. BioPrime’s portfolio of biostimulants are based on new active ingredients with novel modes of action and are IP protected. Consequently, this approval grants BioPrime the capacity to scale with assurance, cultivate deeper alliances with premier agri-input companies and strategically enter new markets supported by comprehensive compliance and defensibility. From Lab to Licensed Product India’s regulatory regime for biostimulants has tightened considerably in recent years. What were the most complex scientific or compliance hurdles you had to overcome, and what does this approval signal about the maturity of India’s biologicals ecosystem? The journey from laboratory discovery to regulatory approval is complex, particularly in biologicals. One of the key challenges has been the need to characterize bioactive compounds precisely while maintaining the complexity inherent to biological extracts. India also has strict residue – heavy metal, insecticide pesticide limits and requires extremely strict adherence to these requirements. For us at BioPrime, the most demanding aspect was aligning advanced scientific discovery—such as secondary metabolite profiling and plant response validation—with regulatory documentation requirements under the Fertilizer Control Order (FCO) framework. This process required extensive field validation, analytical characterization and standardization of manufacturing processes. The successful approvals signal the broader maturation of India’s biologicals ecosystem. This progress should aid the sector move away from loosely defined inputs and towards scientifically validated products that deliver consistent performance at scale. Science vs. Commodity Play The biostimulants market often risks commoditization. With over 20 differentiated products featuring proprietary active ingredients, how do you ensure BioPrime remains science-led rather than competing on price alone? The risk of commoditization in biostimulants is real, especially in segments dominated by generic seaweed or humic products. BioPrime has thus made a deliberate choice to follow a distinct path. Our approach is centered on discovering and developing specific secondary metabolites that trigger defined physiological responses in plants—whether related to stress tolerance, nutrient efficiency or reproductive performance. This science-led development allows us to build products with clear modes of action and differentiated outcomes. With proprietary active ingredients, our strategy is to build strong IP barriers .Farmers and institutional partners ultimately value predictable outcomes and that is where science-driven innovation creates long-term differentiation. Defensible Innovation and IP You’ve emphasized developing novel active ingredients from unconventional raw materials. How critical is intellectual property and defensible science in building long-term enterprise value in biologicals? In biologicals, defensible innovation is essential for building long-term enterprise value. Many products in the market rely on broadly available raw materials, which makes differentiation difficult. At BioPrime, we focus on identifying novel bioactive compounds from unconventional natural sources and translating them into functional agricultural solutions. Protecting these discoveries through Intellectual Property (IP)—combined with proprietary extraction and formulation processes creates a defensible moat. IP, however, is only one component. True defensibility comes from integrating scientific discovery, regulatory approval, manufacturing capability and field validation. When these elements come together, the result is a platform that can continuously generate differentiated product. Market Expansion Strategy With regulatory clearance in place, what is your immediate commercial roadmap? Are you prioritizing deeper domestic penetration, export markets, or strategic partnerships with larger agri-input companies? With regulatory approvals in place, BioPrime’s focus now is on scaling adoption through a combination of domestic expansion and strategic partnerships. India remains a key market for us, given the increasing farmer interest in biological solutions and the strong distribution networks of agri-input companies. At the same time, we are actively expanding collaborations with global agribusiness partners who are looking to incorporate biological technologies into their portfolios. BioPrime’s strategy is therefore two- fold: deepen penetration in key domestic crop segments while leveraging partnerships to accelerate global market access. Biologicals in the Era of Regenerative Agriculture As sustainability transitions from aspiration to operational necessity, where do you see biostimulants fitting within regenerative agriculture frameworks? Can biological inputs meaningfully reduce dependence on conventional agrochemicals at scale? Biostimulants play a critical role in enabling regenerative agriculture by improving plant resilience, nutrient use efficiency and soil health interactions. Rather than replacing conventional inputs entirely, biologicals can complement them by making nutrient delivery more efficient and helping plants withstand environmental stress. This integration reduces input intensity while maintaining productivity. As agriculture moves towards sustainability-driven models, biological solutions will increasingly become part of integrated crop management systems that combine nutrition, crop protection and soil regeneration. Farmer Economics and ROI In a market where farmer margins remain tight, how do you communicate measurable return on investment? What data points or field outcomes best demonstrate the economic case for adopting differentiated biostimulants? Ultimately, adoption is driven by economics. Farmers need to see clear and consistent return on investments. At BioPrime, we focus on outcomes that directly translate into economic value —improved crop vigour, higher flower-to-fruit conversion, better yield realizations and enhanced quality parameters.One often ignored aspect is reduction in crop/ yield loss due to climatic fluctuations. This is a tricky parameter as loss is always not apparent and visible. BioPrime’s field validations across multiple crops helps generate the data needed to demonstrate these benefits. Equally important is communicating these results in a simple and practical way through field demonstrations, institutional trials, and partnerships with agribusiness companies. When farmers see the impact in their own fields, adoption follows naturally. The Next Frontier Now that the regulatory foundation is secured, what is the next frontier for BioPrime —next-generation bioactives, carbon-linked agriculture solutions, precision biological delivery, or global expansion? With regulatory foundations now in place, BioPrime’s focus is on advancing the next generation of biological innovation. This includes discovering new bioactive molecules through our research platforms, exploring opportunities in areas such as climate resilience and carbon-linked agricultural solutions. We have a very strong pipeline in biocontrol segment and will soon we launching several Biofungicides. At a broader level, BioPrime has evolved from being just a product-focused company into a science platform for agricultural biologicals, capable of delivering differentiated solutions for farmers and partners across global markets. ---- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3644/farming-desert-seas-how-technology-is-rewriting-future-of-aquaculture.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3644/farming-desert-seas-how-technology-is-rewriting-future-of-aquaculture.html Wed, 18 Mar 2026 18:34:19 +0530 In an exclusive interaction with AgroSpectrum, Marcel Verbrugge, Aquaculture engineer, Dahui aquaculture limited outlines how desert aquaculture is emerging as a scalable solution for food security, water efficiency, and climate resilience As climate stress and resource scarcity redefine global food systems, aquaculture is rapidly breaking free from its coastal roots—moving into some of the world’s most extreme environments. Along the edges of the Taklamakan Desert, cutting-edge innovations in water chemistry, microbial engineering, and Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS) are turning inhospitable terrain into high-efficiency seafood production hubs. This shift is gaining momentum in regions like Saudi Arabia, where food security imperatives and policy backing are accelerating investment in desert-based farming. What was once experimental is now emerging as a scalable, technology-driven blueprint for resilient, localized protein production. Against this backdrop, several companies are pushing the technological frontier—integrating RAS, artificial seawater systems, and climate-controlled infrastructure to unlock new production ecosystems. The model also aligns with broader shifts toward circular resource use, digital monitoring, and precision farming. This interview with Marcel Verbrugge explores how these innovations are converging, what it takes to scale them sustainably, and whether desert aquaculture could redefine the future of global food production in an era of climate stress and resource constraints. Transforming the fringes of the Taklamakan Desert into productive aquaculture farms represents a striking reimagining of landscape and resource use. What technological and ecological breakthroughs made it possible to cultivate fish and shrimp in such an extreme environment? The single most critical challenge—and indeed the defining breakthrough—has been water engineering: the ability to convert chemically hostile saline-alkali groundwater into a stable, biologically productive aquaculture medium. In regions such as the Taklamakan Desert, groundwater is not scarce, but it is inherently unsuitable for aquaculture due to high salinity and extreme alkalinity. The innovation lies in systematically transforming this constraint into a controlled aquatic ecosystem through a multi-stage process often described as “salt-alkali water seawater restoration.” The first stage is baseline utilization. Farmers tap into shallow aquifers—often just two meters below the surface—where naturally saline groundwater can reach salinity levels of up to 8 parts per thousand. While this salinity is lower than seawater, it provides a foundational mineral profile that can be engineered further, reducing the need to build water chemistry from scratch. The second stage involves precise chemical balancing. The native groundwater is typically highly alkaline, with pH levels ranging from 9.5 to as high as 11—far beyond the tolerance range of most aquatic species. Through a combination of desalination and dealkalization techniques—primarily by blending with freshwater and applying buffering agents—the water is carefully adjusted to a pH range of 7.5 to 8.5. This calibrated environment closely mimics marine conditions found in bodies such as the South China Sea, creating a chemically stable foundation for aquaculture. The most sophisticated layer of this transformation is microbial mimicry. Proprietary microbial consortia and beneficial bacterial communities are introduced not merely to purify the water, but to actively regulate and stabilize its biochemical dynamics. These microbes facilitate nutrient cycling, control ammonia and nitrite levels, and gradually establish a living, self-regulating system that behaves like a natural seawater ecosystem. This step is critical in enabling the successful cultivation of marine species such as shrimp and seabass in a completely artificial inland environment. Beyond water chemistry, controlled-environment infrastructure plays a complementary role. In countries like Saudi Arabia, desert aquaculture is increasingly integrated with greenhouse-based systems and hybrid water models that combine saline and freshwater inputs. These enclosed or semi-enclosed systems buffer extreme temperature fluctuations, reduce evaporation losses, and allow year-round production under tightly regulated conditions. Taken together, these breakthroughs—hydrochemical engineering, microbial ecosystem design, and climate-controlled infrastructure—represent a fundamental shift in how aquaculture environments are created. Rather than relying on naturally suitable ecosystems, producers are now able to design and replicate optimal aquatic conditions in some of the harshest landscapes on earth. Desert aquaculture relies on saline groundwater, engineered ponds, and tightly monitored production systems. From a sustainability perspective, how viable is this model over the long term, particularly with regard to water management, soil salinity, and ecosystem balance? Long-term sustainability in desert aquaculture hinges on how effectively operations transition from resource extraction to closed-loop, circular production systems. Given the fragility of arid ecosystems, the model’s viability is being defined by innovations that simultaneously address water efficiency, soil protection, and ecosystem balance. At the core is advanced water stewardship. Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS) have fundamentally redefined water use efficiency, enabling up to 99 percent recycling within production units. This dramatically reduces dependence on freshwater inputs—an essential advantage in desert regions where water scarcity is the primary constraint. In parallel, Integrated Aqua-Vegeculture Systems (iAVs) extend this efficiency by channeling nutrient-rich aquaculture effluents into agriculture. Instead of being discharged as waste, this water is repurposed to irrigate salt-tolerant crops such as halophytes or fodder, effectively converting a liability into a productive input stream. Equally important is the management of soil salinity and environmental leakage. The use of lined ponds and engineered containment systems prevents seepage of saline water into surrounding soils, mitigating long-term land degradation risks. Increasingly, farms are adopting zero-discharge systems, where all process water is treated, recirculated, and reused within the facility. This not only minimizes ecological impact but also enhances regulatory compliance and operational predictability. The model is further strengthened through circular economy integration. Organic waste from aquaculture—such as sludge and residual biomass—is being processed through anaerobic digestion systems to generate biogas, which can partially offset the high energy demands of intensive aquaculture. This is particularly relevant in desert environments, where energy-water trade-offs are critical. Complementing this, the integration of solar power is emerging as a natural fit, leveraging abundant sunlight to reduce reliance on conventional energy sources and improve the overall carbon footprint of operations. Technological sophistication is another defining pillar. Modular RAS designs allow for scalable, compartmentalized production with minimal environmental interaction, reducing biosecurity risks and enabling precise control over farming conditions. On top of this, AI- and IoT-enabled monitoring systems are transforming operational management. Real-time data on water quality, temperature, oxygen levels, and feed efficiency allows for predictive interventions, optimizing both productivity and resource use while minimizing waste and system stress. Finally, the strategic use of brackish groundwater—often unsuitable for agriculture or human consumption—adds an important sustainability dimension. By utilizing this otherwise underutilized resource, desert aquaculture avoids competing with critical freshwater needs, reinforcing its role as a complementary, rather than extractive, food production system. Taken together, these innovations position desert aquaculture not merely as viable, but as a highly engineered, resource-efficient model capable of sustaining long-term production in some of the world’s most water-constrained environments. One of the arguments for inland aquaculture in desert regions is logistical efficiency—bringing seafood production closer to major inland markets. How significant are the economic advantages of reduced transport time and supply-chain costs compared with traditional coastal aquaculture? Inland aquaculture, particularly in desert regions, is increasingly being recognized not just as a technological breakthrough but as a structural shift in supply chain economics. By relocating production closer to consumption centers, the model fundamentally redefines how seafood moves from farm to fork, unlocking efficiencies that extend well beyond simple logistics. The most immediate advantage lies in reduced transport time and cost. Traditional seafood supply chains often depend on long-distance movement from coastal farms to inland consumption hubs, requiring cold-chain infrastructure, multiple handling points, and, in many cases, freezing to preserve shelf life. Inland aquaculture eliminates much of this complexity. Producers situated near major population centers can deliver fresh, never-frozen products within hours rather than days, significantly lowering freight costs while also capturing premium pricing in urban markets where freshness is a key differentiator. This compression of the supply chain also translates into a measurable reduction in carbon emissions. Long-haul transportation—whether by refrigerated trucks, air freight, or shipping—carries a substantial environmental footprint. By shortening these routes, inland systems reduce fuel consumption and emissions intensity per unit of output. In a global context where food systems are under increasing scrutiny for their climate impact, this becomes a strategic advantage, particularly for markets with tightening sustainability regulations. Equally important is the resilience dimension. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed the fragility of globally dispersed food supply chains, where disruptions in logistics, port operations, or trade flows can quickly translate into shortages and price volatility. Inland aquaculture offers a more localized and decentralized production model, insulating regions from external shocks and enhancing food security. This localization also has multiplier effects for regional economies—supporting jobs, stimulating ancillary industries, and reducing dependence on imports. Beyond these core benefits, proximity to markets enables greater demand responsiveness. Producers can better align output with consumption patterns, reduce inventory losses, and adapt more quickly to shifts in consumer preferences. This agility is particularly valuable for high-value, perishable commodities like seafood, where timing and quality directly influence margins. Taken together, inland aquaculture is not merely about geographic relocation—it represents a reconfiguration of the seafood value chain, where efficiency, sustainability, and resilience converge to create a more robust and economically viable production model. China’s desert aquaculture experiments are often framed as a new agricultural frontier. Could this model realistically be replicated in other arid regions of the world, such as the Middle East, Central Asia, or parts of Africa, and what prerequisites would be essential for success? The shift toward desert aquaculture is no longer confined to experimental projects—it is actively expanding across regions, demonstrating that the model is both adaptable and scalable under very different economic and environmental conditions. What is emerging globally is not a single approach, but a spectrum of models ranging from high-tech industrial systems to community-driven solutions, all built on the same core principle: decoupling aquaculture from natural water bodies. In Saudi Arabia, aquaculture is being positioned as a strategic pillar of food security. While coastal net-pen farming continues along the Red Sea, the real acceleration is in land-based systems, particularly Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS). These systems allow for controlled, year-round production in desert environments using minimal water. Private players, including startups such as Mustadem, are developing desert-optimized RAS facilities focused on high-value species like sobaity seabream. The objective is clear: reduce import dependence while building a stable, domestic supply of premium seafood tailored to local consumption patterns. The United Arab Emirates is taking a similarly ambitious but more capital-intensive route, emphasizing scale and technological sophistication. Large infrastructure projects—such as a planned 3,000-tonne-per-year RAS facility developed through partnerships between Abu Dhabi-based investment entities and international technology providers—highlight the country’s push toward self-sufficiency. By farming species like rainbow trout in fully controlled desert environments, the UAE is demonstrating how advanced aquaculture can overcome climatic limitations while ensuring consistent quality and output. In contrast, South Africa illustrates a different, equally important pathway. In the Kalahari Desert, initiatives led by INMED South Africa have focused on low-cost, community-based aquaponics systems. These integrated models combine fish farming with vegetable cultivation, dramatically improving resource efficiency—using up to 90 percent less water than traditional agriculture—while delivering tangible social impact. In some cases, vegetable production has increased by 300 percent, with systems becoming a primary source of fresh food for local schools and communities. This underscores that desert aquaculture is not exclusively a high-tech solution; it can also be a tool for grassroots food security and rural development. Bridging these different models are technology providers such as Dahui Aquaculture Limited, which are deploying modular, scalable RAS solutions across regions like Kuwait and the broader GCC. These systems integrate advanced water treatment, climate control, and biosecurity protocols, enabling consistent production even under extreme environmental conditions. Their modular design allows for phased expansion, reducing upfront risk while accelerating adoption in emerging markets. Whether through high-investment, technology-driven systems in the Gulf or community-oriented aquaponics in Africa, the underlying innovation—efficient water use, controlled environments, and system integration—remains constant. This flexibility is precisely what makes desert aquaculture a compelling solution for the future of food production in water-constrained regions. Beyond the novelty of farming seafood in the desert, what broader lessons does this experiment offer about the future of food production—particularly in a world facing climate stress, land degradation, and growing demand for protein? The deeper significance of desert aquaculture lies in its philosophical shift. It challenges the traditional assumption that food production must be tied to naturally fertile environments. Instead, it demonstrates that with the right combination of technology and ecological understanding, production can be decoupled from geography. This model embodies the future of food systems: resilient rather than vulnerable, circular rather than extractive, and precise rather than wasteful. It shows that degraded or extreme landscapes can be repurposed into productive ecosystems, reducing pressure on already stressed natural resources. Perhaps most importantly, it offers a scalable framework for addressing global protein demand without exacerbating deforestation, overfishing, or freshwater depletion. Saudi Arabia’s push toward Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS) reflects a strategic response to water scarcity and food security challenges. How transformative is this technology for a desert nation seeking to produce more of its own protein domestically? For a desert nation like Saudi Arabia, the adoption of Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS) represents not just a technological upgrade, but a fundamental restructuring of how food can be produced under extreme resource constraints. It directly addresses the Kingdom’s two most binding limitations—acute water scarcity and harsh climatic conditions—while aligning closely with the strategic objectives of Saudi Vision 2030 to enhance food security and reduce import dependence. Conventional aquaculture is inherently water-intensive and geographically dependent on coastal or freshwater ecosystems. RAS breaks both constraints. By operating as a closed-loop system, it continuously filters, treats, and recirculates water within the production unit, achieving recycling efficiencies of up to 99 percent. This dramatically reduces the need for freshwater withdrawals, making it possible to sustain high-density fish production even in the middle of arid desert landscapes. A critical advantage of RAS in the Saudi context is its ability to utilize non-potable water sources. Systems can be designed to operate on saline or brackish groundwater—resources that are otherwise unsuitable for agriculture or human consumption. This ensures that aquaculture does not compete with already limited freshwater supplies, preserving them for domestic and municipal use while still enabling large-scale protein production. Equally transformative is the level of environmental control these systems provide. Modern RAS facilities are typically housed in climate-controlled, prefab structures equipped with automated heating, cooling, and aeration systems. This allows producers to maintain optimal growth conditions regardless of external temperatures, which can fluctuate dramatically in desert environments. As a result, a wide range of species—from freshwater fish to marine species grown in artificial seawater—can be cultivated with high consistency and predictability. This controlled environment also significantly enhances biosecurity. By isolating production from external ecosystems, RAS minimizes exposure to pathogens, pollutants, and environmental variability. This leads to lower mortality rates, reduced reliance on antibiotics, and more stable production cycles—critical factors for building a reliable domestic aquaculture industry. Beyond production efficiency, the technology enables year-round, location-independent farming, effectively decoupling aquaculture from geography. This opens the door for distributed production models closer to consumption centers, further strengthening supply chains. In essence, RAS transforms aquaculture from a resource-dependent activity into a precision-controlled, infrastructure-driven system. For Saudi Arabia, this is not merely about producing fish—it is about building a resilient, self-sufficient protein ecosystem that can operate sustainably within one of the world’s most water-constrained environments. RAS systems can reduce water use by up to 99 percent compared with conventional aquaculture. From an economic and environmental standpoint, how sustainable is this model at scale, particularly in a region where water and energy costs are critical considerations? While Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS) are often described as near–closed-loop systems, the operational reality—particularly in desert climates—is more nuanced. Water efficiency remains exceptionally high, but not absolute, and understanding these dynamics is critical to assessing long-term economic and environmental sustainability. In arid regions such as Saudi Arabia, evaporation is the primary source of water loss. High ambient temperatures, combined with aeration and system circulation, typically result in daily water loss of around 5 percent. In addition, a further 2–3 percent of water is discharged through filtration processes—such as mechanical filters, protein skimmers, and sludge removal systems—which are essential to maintaining water quality and system stability. However, what distinguishes advanced RAS operations is how this “lost” water is managed. Rather than being treated as waste, discharge streams are increasingly captured, treated, and repurposed. Nutrient-rich effluent—containing nitrogen, phosphorus, and organic matter—can be reused for agricultural applications, including irrigation of date palms, fodder crops, or other desert-adapted agriculture. This creates a linked aquaculture-agriculture system, where outputs from one process become inputs for another, significantly improving overall resource efficiency. From an economic standpoint, these partial losses are offset by the system’s overall efficiency and the broader operating environment. In many Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, energy costs are relatively low compared to Europe, often supported by government subsidies or favorable industrial tariffs. This is particularly important because RAS systems are energy-intensive, requiring continuous pumping, filtration, aeration, and temperature control. Moreover, government support plays a pivotal role in enhancing viability. Subsidies, infrastructure investment, and policy backing under frameworks such as Saudi Vision 2030 reduce capital and operational barriers, accelerating adoption at scale. This supportive ecosystem allows producers to absorb higher energy usage while still maintaining competitive production costs. Importantly, ongoing integration of renewable energy—particularly solar—has the potential to further rebalance the water-energy equation. As these systems evolve, the combination of high water reuse, byproduct utilization, and improving energy efficiency is steadily strengthening the sustainability profile of RAS in desert environments. In essence, while RAS is not entirely lossless, it represents a highly optimized system where even inefficiencies are captured and repurposed, making it one of the most viable models for aquaculture in water-constrained regions. Saudi Vision 2030 places strong emphasis on food security and economic diversification. What role do you see advanced aquaculture playing in strengthening the Kingdom’s domestic food supply chains and reducing reliance on seafood imports? To build a more resilient and diversified food supply chain, Saudi Arabia is moving decisively beyond traditional aquaculture staples toward a broader, higher-value species portfolio. While tilapia continues to anchor domestic production—accounting for roughly a third of output—the strategic focus is now on expanding species diversity to enhance nutritional value, market competitiveness, and consumer preference alignment. A key dimension of this shift is the successful introduction of new, high-value species through advanced technologies like Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS). One notable breakthrough has been the cultivation of trout in controlled desert environments—an achievement that would have been unthinkable under conventional aquaculture conditions. This not only expands the domestic availability of premium, omega-3-rich protein but also demonstrates the flexibility of RAS to support species traditionally limited to cooler climates. At the same time, there is a strong emphasis on cultivating native and regionally adapted species. Institutions such as King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) are playing a pivotal role in developing breeding and hatchery programs for species like sobaity seabream, snubnose pompano, and orange-spotted grouper. These species are naturally suited to the Red Sea ecosystem and are highly valued in local markets, making them commercially viable while reducing biological risk. The impact of these efforts is already visible in production data. Saudi Arabia’s aquaculture sector has experienced rapid expansion, with output increasing by more than 55 percent in 2023 to exceed 140,000 tonnes. This growth trajectory is aligned with ambitious national targets to scale production to 600,000 tonnes annually by 2030—a transformation that would significantly rebalance the country’s seafood supply-demand equation. The implications for food security are substantial. By increasing domestic production capacity, the Kingdom can reduce its reliance on seafood imports—currently estimated at around 200,000 tonnes annually—while also stabilizing local markets against global price volatility and supply chain disruptions. This localization of production enhances not only availability but also price predictability and quality control. Crucially, this expansion is not being pursued at the expense of sustainability. The integration of advanced aquaculture technologies, combined with a focus on resource efficiency and environmental management, ensures that growth is aligned with long-term ecological constraints. Under the broader framework of Saudi Vision 2030, aquaculture is evolving from a niche sector into a strategic pillar of national food security and economic diversification. In effect, Saudi Arabia is not just increasing output—it is reengineering its seafood value chain, building a system that is more diverse, technologically advanced, and resilient to external shocks. Looking ahead, could Saudi Arabia emerge as a global leader in desert-based aquaculture innovation? What lessons might other water-scarce regions learn from the Kingdom’s approach to combining sustainability, technology, and food production? Saudi Arabia is already positioning itself as a leader in this space. The combination of strong government backing, access to capital, and a clear strategic imperative has accelerated innovation and deployment at scale. Other water-scarce regions—including Oman, Qatar, and Iraq—are beginning to pivot away from traditional open-pond aquaculture toward recirculating systems, recognizing the limitations imposed by water scarcity. The key lesson is that sustainability and productivity are no longer mutually exclusive. By integrating advanced technology, policy support, and circular resource management, it is possible to build food systems that are both efficient and resilient. Desert aquaculture, once considered improbable, is fast becoming a blueprint for the future of food production in a resource-constrained world. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3639/humanitys-backup-plan-arctic-seed-deposits-safeguard-global-food-and-knowledge.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3639/humanitys-backup-plan-arctic-seed-deposits-safeguard-global-food-and-knowledge.html Tue, 17 Mar 2026 11:59:33 +0530 Dr. Kent Nnadozie, Secretary, FAO International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, calls the Svalbard and Arctic World Archive deposits a historic step for food security and international cooperation The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture marked a historic week with new deposits at the Svalbard Global Seed Vault and the Arctic World Archive. For the first time, olive genetic resources were secured in Svalbard, with 5,000 seeds from 59 accessions deposited by the International Olive Council. The nearby Arctic World Archive now houses digital records, legal texts, and knowledge that underpin global stewardship of these resources. Storting representative Geir Pollestad has nominated the Seed Vault and key partners—including NordGen, Crop Trust, CGIAR, and the FAO—for the Nobel Peace Prize, highlighting the link between food security and global peace. The milestones underscore the strategic importance of crop genetic diversity as global infrastructure, while emphasizing the need for long-term funding, equitable access, and cooperation in the face of climate challenges. This exclusive interview with Agrospectrum, explores the recent milestones achieved by the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, including the dual deposits at the Svalbard Global Seed Vault and the Arctic World Archive. It examines the strategic importance of crop genetic diversity as global infrastructure, the evolving role of commodity organizations in biodiversity governance, and the challenges of financing, cooperation, and digital sequence information in securing the world’s food systems. The discussion also looks ahead to the Treaty’s vision for 2035, focusing on strengthening political, operational, and financial frameworks to ensure resilience, equitable access, and the active use of plant genetic resources in a rapidly changing climate. The Dual Arctic Milestone The International Treaty has now secured both genetic material in the Svalbard Global Seed Vault and institutional knowledge in the Arctic World Archive. How do you see this dual protection strategy reshaping the global architecture of food security and multilateral cooperation? This dual milestone reflects a fuller understanding of what resilience requires. Food security does not rest only on conserving seeds. It also depends on preserving the legal frameworks, institutional memory and shared knowledge that allow countries to cooperate in conserving and using those seeds over time. By securing crop diversity in the Svalbard Global Seed Vault and preserving key records in the Arctic World Archive, we are protecting both the biological foundation of agriculture and the governance architecture that sustains it. One safeguards the material basis of adaptation. The other safeguards the continuity of cooperation. In an era of accelerating climate risk and geopolitical uncertainty, that matters greatly. It signals that resilience is not only about storing resources, but also about protecting the systems of trust, law and collaboration that make those resources available for the common good. A useful way to put it is this: seeds preserve options for the future, and institutions preserve our ability to act on them together. Crop Diversity as Strategic Infrastructure As climate volatility intensifies, should crop genetic diversity now be considered critical global infrastructure, on par with energy grids or digital networks? What policy shifts are needed to elevate it to that level? Yes, crop genetic diversity should increasingly be treated as strategic infrastructure. It is less visible than roads, power grids or digital cables, but it is just as foundational. Without genetic diversity, there is no durable pathway to crop adaptation, no sustained breeding progress, and no real resilience in food systems. Every time a breeder develops a variety that tolerates heat, drought, salinity or emerging pests, that progress depends on access to diverse genetic material. In that sense, crop diversity is not a peripheral environmental concern. It is core productive infrastructure for humanity. It is truly an existential issue. To elevate it to that level, several policy shifts are needed. First, conservation systems such as genebanks, community seed systems and in situ conservation efforts must be funded as long-term public infrastructure, not as short-cycle projects. Second, plant genetic resources need to be integrated more explicitly into national climate adaptation, food security and development planning. Third, international exchange systems must remain functional, predictable and trusted, because no country is self-sufficient in the diversity it will need. We would never leave an electricity grid to chance. We should not treat the biological infrastructure of food security any less seriously. From Conservation to Utilisation Safeguarding seeds is essential, but ensuring their active use is equally critical. How is the Treaty strengthening the link between conservation, farmer access and innovation pipelines, particularly in climate-vulnerable regions? That is exactly the right framing. Conservation is indispensable, but conservation alone is not enough. Diversity must be conserved in ways that keep it accessible, relevant and usable. The International Plant Treaty helps strengthen that link in several ways. Through the Multilateral System, it facilitates access to plant genetic resources for research, breeding and training. That is essential for moving diversity from storage into practical use. Through the Benefit-sharing Fund, it supports projects that connect farmers, local institutions, researchers and national systems in the conservation and sustainable use of crop diversity, often in regions facing high climatic stress. In climate-vulnerable regions, the key is to close the loop between conservation, selection, breeding and farmer use. We need systems in which local varieties and farmer knowledge inform research agendas, and where improved materials and information flow back to farming communities in forms they can use. Innovation should not be seen as something separate from farmers. Farmers are part of the innovation system. The real measure of conservation is not what sits on a shelf or in cold rooms, but what remains alive in farmers’ fields, gets used in breeding programmes and supports our food systems. The Olive Breakthrough The historic olive accession deposit in collaboration with the International Olive Council signals deeper institutional alignment. What does this milestone reveal about the evolving role of commodity bodies within global biodiversity governance? This is a very significant development. It shows that commodity bodies are not only sectoral actors concerned with production and markets. They can also be important stewards of genetic diversity and strategic partners in the broader governance of agrobiodiversity. The olive deposit demonstrates that commodity-specific institutions and multilateral biodiversity frameworks do not operate in separate universes. On the contrary, they can reinforce one another. Such bodies often bring technical expertise, sectoral legitimacy and close connections to producer communities. When those strengths are aligned with wider international frameworks such as the Treaty, the result can be more coherent and more effective conservation action. It also reflects an important evolution in thinking. Crop diversity is no longer seen only as the domain of genebanks or environmental institutions. It is increasingly recognized as a strategic asset for entire value chains and production systems. That creates new opportunities for collaboration. What this milestone shows is that biodiversity governance becomes stronger when specialized institutions see genetic diversity not as a side issue, but as part of their core mandate. Financing the Future of Diversity The Benefit-sharing Fund has supported smallholder-driven conservation in the Sahel, Guatemala and beyond. Is the current global financing model sufficient to sustain long-term crop diversity protection, or is a new funding paradigm required? The honest answer is that while current financing remains important, but it is not yet sufficient. There is no question that the Benefit-sharing Fund has demonstrated real value. It has supported practical, locally grounded work that strengthens conservation, supports farmers and reinforces resilience in vulnerable settings. But the scale of the challenge is growing faster than the scale of available finance. Crop diversity underpins global food security, climate adaptation and agricultural innovation. Yet financing for its conservation and sustainable use remains fragmented, often short-term and still below what is required. A stronger and more durable funding paradigm is needed, one that treats plant genetic resources as a global strategic asset worthy of sustained public and collective investment. That means broadening the funding base, increasing predictability, and making a stronger case to climate, biodiversity and development finance communities that crop diversity is not a niche concern. It is an enabling condition for long-term resilience. Geopolitics and Seed Sovereignty In an era of rising geopolitical fragmentation, how resilient is the Treaty’s Multilateral System? Are nations strengthening cooperation around plant genetic resources, or becoming more protective? Both dynamics are present, and that is precisely why the Multilateral System matters. There is clearly a stronger language of sovereignty in many policy arenas, including around genetic resources and data. Countries want assurance that their resources will not simply flow outward without fairness, recognition or benefit-sharing. That concern is understandable. At the same time, the reality is that no country can secure its food future in isolation. Agriculture everywhere depends on crops and traits that have travelled across borders over centuries. Climate change is making that interdependence even more pronounced. So while there may be greater caution and greater political sensitivity, there is also a growing recognition that cooperation is not optional. The resilience of the Multilateral System lies in the fact that it offers a rules-based way to manage this interdependence. It does not erase sovereignty. It operationalizes cooperation within an agreed framework. The challenge now is to ensure that the system remains credible, balanced and sufficiently responsive to contemporary expectations of fairness. Seed sovereignty and international cooperation should not be framed as opposites. In practice, durable sovereignty increasingly depends on effective cooperation. Digital Sequence Information (DSI) The debate around digital genetic data is intensifying globally. How is the Treaty positioning itself to ensure equitable access and benefit-sharing in a world where crop genomes can be transmitted digitally across borders? This is one of the most important governance questions now facing the international system. Scientific and technological change has made it possible to derive value from genetic resources through digital information flows that do not always involve physical transfer of material in the traditional sense. That creates clear opportunities for research and innovation, but it also raises legitimate concerns about equity, benefit-sharing and the future integrity of existing multilateral arrangements. The Treaty has to engage this issue with seriousness and pragmatism. The objective should not be to impede science. It should be to ensure that scientific progress remains anchored in fairness, trust and international cooperation. If the governance system does not adapt, there is a risk that confidence in multilateral exchange arrangements will erode. Positioning the Treaty well in this area means contributing constructively to international discussions, clarifying how digital developments affect access and benefit-sharing, and exploring approaches that preserve both openness in research and equity in outcomes. The central principle must remain that the benefits arising from the use of plant genetic resources, whether physical or digital, should support the collective system that makes innovation possible in the first place. The question is not whether science will move into the digital domain. It already has. The question is whether governance will evolve quickly enough to keep cooperation fair and credible. The Next Decade: A Strategic Vision Looking ahead to 2035, what structural reforms or innovations must occur within the International Treaty framework to ensure it remains fit for purpose in a hotter, more uncertain world? By 2035, the Treaty will need to be stronger in three respects: politically, operationally and financially. Politically, it will need to maintain broad confidence that multilateral cooperation on plant genetic resources remains fair, relevant and responsive to present-day realities, including new technologies and heightened concern about equity. Operationally, it will need stronger links between conservation, use, farmer engagement, data systems and innovation pathways, so that the system is not only preserving diversity but actively mobilizing it for resilience. Financially, it will need a more robust and predictable support base for benefit-sharing, capacity development and long-term conservation. There is also a deeper strategic shift required. Crop diversity can no longer be treated as a specialized issue sitting at the margins of agriculture policy. It has to be recognized as central to climate adaptation, food security, nutrition, resilience and peace. The Treaty is well placed to help make that case, but it must continue to evolve institutionally and programmatically to match the scale of the challenge. The Treaty must remain not only a guardian of inherited diversity, but a platform for future resilience. That is the task for the coming decade. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3638/only-35-of-worlds-land-has-documented-ownership-growing-global-concern.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3638/only-35-of-worlds-land-has-documented-ownership-growing-global-concern.html Mon, 16 Mar 2026 14:18:02 +0530 Dr Ward Anseeuw, Senior Land Tenure Officer, FAO shares insights with AgroSpectrum on land tenure insecurity, inequality in land distribution, and the need for stronger governance reforms. A new global report on land tenure and governance has highlighted slow progress in securing land rights worldwide, revealing that only about 35 percent of the world’s land has formally documented ownership. The findings underscore growing concerns over land tenure insecurity, with nearly 1.1 billion people fearing they could lose their land or housing within the next five years, posing risks to food security, livelihoods, and climate resilience. In this context, AgroSpectrum conducted an exclusive interview with Dr Ward Anseeuw, Senior Land Tenure Officer at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. In the interview, Dr Anseeuw discusses the key findings of the report, including stark inequalities in land ownership, the challenges surrounding customary land rights, and the implications for sustainable agriculture and rural development. He also outlines the urgent need for stronger political commitment, inclusive land governance frameworks, and improved documentation systems to enhance tenure security globally. The Big Picture Only 35 percent of the world’s land is formally documented. After two decades of global policy frameworks, why has progress on tenure security remained so structurally slow? Progress on strengthening tenure security has remained structurally slow since many legal systems still fail to recognize the legitimacy of existing practices, particularly the ownership and management rights of customary and Indigenous communities who, in reality, govern large territories. Where formalization is possible, the high cost and complexity of surveying, registration, and documentation create significant barriers, especially since most systems were never designed to accommodate overlapping or collective rights at scale. At the same time, limited baseline data and incomplete records generate overlapping claims, such as customary use versus statutory ownership or unclear boundaries, which in turn fuel disputes and make it even harder to build reliable, trusted land information systems. Rising InsecurityThe report finds that 1.1 billion people fear losing their land within five years — a figure that is rising. What structural forces are driving this acceleration of land insecurity now? The report finds that roughly 1.1 billion adults, around one in four, fear they could lose rights to some or all of their land or housing within five years, a share that has risen in since 2020. This acceleration is driven by a convergence of structural pressures on land, particularly where rights remain undocumented or legally ambiguous. Intensifying competition from mainstream development, including rapid urban expansion, as well as large-scale industrial agriculture and extractive industries, generate heightened conflict risks and displacement. An additional layer of pressure comes in recent years from the paradoxical “green squeeze,” where climate‑oriented initiatives such as renewable energy installations, biofuel production, conservation programs, and carbon offset project can end up harming areas with existing tenure practices that lack formal protections. All of this unfolds in the broader context of weak tenure documentation globally: with only 35 percent of global land formally recorded and many customary systems remaining in legal limbo, communities face heightened vulnerability precisely when land values and external demand are surging. Climate & Carbon StakesWith Indigenous and customary lands holding an estimated 45 gigatons of irrecoverable carbon, how does insecure tenure undermine global climate commitments, including net-zero pledges? Mapped customary territories hold an estimated 45 gigatons of irrecoverable carbon, which is approximately 37 percent of the global total, and insecure tenure within these communities places these critical carbon reserves at heightened risk. Without recognized and enforceable rights, communities are more vulnerable to pressures that drive deforestation and ecosystem conversion, threatening carbon stocks that cannot be restored on climate‑relevant timescales. The report highlights that Indigenous Peoples, and other customary rights‑holders, occupy roughly 42 percent of the world’s land area but have legally recognized ownership over only about 8 percent, leaving vast high‑carbon landscapes in a state of legal uncertainty. This weakens long‑term stewardship and exposes forests to degradation, undermining the durability required for credible climate action. It also compromises the integrity of net‑zero strategies: land‑based mitigation, offsets, and carbon removal initiatives depend on secure, stable tenure. Without that, the risks of reversals, project failure, and conflict rise, directly jeopardizing the credibility and permanence of national and corporate climate commitments. Inequality & ConcentrationThe top 10 percent of landholders operate 89 percent of agricultural land. Does this concentration represent a productivity reality — or a governance failure? Land concentration can be an outcome of structural transformation in countries where productivity growth led by technological modernization displaces less efficient farms and increases farm sizes while non-farm employment generation absorbs agricultural labor surplus. However, the report notes that “ Evidence shows that having sufficient and equitable access to agricultural land is one of the determinants in achieving poverty reduction and food and nutrition security. Furthermore, equitable agrarian structures support the capital accumulation needed for inclusive growth and structural transformation, particularly at low levels of development and in the long term”. It notes that “Current patterns of structural change show the growth of low-income and informal jobs in the service sector, alongside deindustrialization or insufficient industrialization. The persistence of rural poverty at the lower end of the farm size distribution, when combined with the patterns above, calls  attention to the role of expanded access to land. In countries with both private and public land availability, a range of policy measures, including redistributive approaches where contextually appropriate, remain possible options to reduce rural poverty, enhance food security, mitigate social and political tensions and revitalize rural economies. Where redistribution is not on the agenda due to land scarcity or political sensitivities, other policies, including rent and tenancy control, as well as regulations against land concentration, can be deployed. Customary Systems vs. State ControlIn regions like sub-Saharan Africa, most land is under customary tenure but remains legally undocumented. What political and institutional barriers prevent formal recognition? In sub‑Saharan Africa, while roughly 73 percent of land is held under customary tenure, only about 1 percent is formally recognized and documented, leaving most customary areas with more limited designated use rights, often with documentation, or simply unrecognized by governments and classified as state land. This structural imbalance reflects deep political and institutional barriers. Not all countries legally recognize the longstanding and widely prevalent customary tenure practices, leading to a complete incongruence between customary and statutory systems that does not recognize the reality on the ground. Even where policy commitments exist, translation into practice remains slow, constrained by weak implementation capacity, fragmented institutional mandates, and limited incentives for coordination. These challenges are compounded by the rising economic and political stakes of land, driven by infrastructure expansion, agribusiness, extractive projects, and emerging climate‑related investments, which may make institutions reluctant to pursue reforms that reduce control over valuable land assets. Gender & Generational GapsThe gender gap in land rights exceeds 20 percentage points in nearly half of reporting countries. What policy levers have proven effective in closing this divide — and why are they not scaling faster? The report reveals that in nearly all 49 countries with data on SDG 5.a.1, men are more likely than women to own or hold secure rights to agricultural land, with gender gaps of more than 20 percentage points in almost half of reporting countries. Evidence from long‑standing tenure governance practice points to a set of effective policy levers: joint titling and spousal co‑ownership defaults, strengthened inheritance laws and enforcement, gender‑responsive land administration systems that ensure women’s names appear on documents, low‑cost registration and legal aid, as well as quotas that guarantee women’s representation in local land governance and dispute resolution bodies. Robust gender‑disaggregated data and monitoring also create political incentives for action. Yet despite their demonstrated effectiveness, these approaches remain underutilized. In practice, such reforms can challenge entrenched household and institutional power structures, while many land administration systems remain ill‑equipped to deliver accessible, gender‑responsive services at scale. A significant factor behind weak legal protection is that women’s land rights are deeply interconnected with longstanding religious beliefs, cultural practices, and social norms. Changing such beliefs, practices, and norms is difficult. Together with gender, these intersectional factors shape how land tenure insecurity is experienced. In particular, young women, women from Indigenous Peoples, and other groups living in conditions of marginalization, often face overlapping and mutually reinforcing barriers. However, data on these intersections remain sparse, highlighting a critical area for future research and policy attention. Climate Finance & Land RushThe report suggests that net-zero strategies could require up to 1.2 billion hectares for land-based carbon removal. How do we prevent climate finance from triggering a new wave of land dispossession? The report warns that achieving global net‑zero targets could require land‑based carbon removals on nearly 1.2 billion hectares, raising serious risks of large‑scale land capture. It also notes that environmental and climate concerns are already driving new land acquisitions, including those backed by institutional investors such as pension funds. Preventing dispossession under expanding climate finance requires safeguards commensurate with these risks. First,  climate‑related investments should not proceed without rigorous tenure due diligence showing that rights, especially customary and collective rights, are legally recognized, documented, and supported by accessible grievance mechanisms. Second, more broadly at country level, legal recognition of customary lands must be prioritized before scaling offsets or carbon‑removal projects, since pressures intensify precisely where rights lack formal protection. Finally, climate strategies should favor interventions that do not require dispossession or consolidation of land, such as restoring degraded areas under community stewardship, and ensure that any project with a land footprint is grounded in benefit‑sharing, free, prior and informed consent, and inclusive governance. Accountability & SDGsOnly 12 countries report comprehensively on land-related SDG indicators. Should land tenure security become a more enforceable metric within global development financing frameworks? Given that secure tenure is intrinsically linked with food security, climate action, and biodiversity protection, a strong case can be made that tenure security should be treated as a more enforceable performance condition in development financing, especially where finance is directly land-linked (agriculture transformation, nature-based climate, conservation, infrastructure).  We already do see more emphasis on tenure security in other global frameworks such as the UNCCD and CBD, and aspects of secure tenure rights, such as Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) being embedded in the standards for projects financed by the GEF and GCF. In FAO projects, environmental and social safeguards increasingly require tenure-risk screening a necessity, so progress is being made on that front, although more enforceable requirements in the future could further facilitate accountability. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3620/middle-east-conflict-disrupts-fertilizer-supply-chain-threatening-global-agriculture.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3620/middle-east-conflict-disrupts-fertilizer-supply-chain-threatening-global-agriculture.html Wed, 11 Mar 2026 14:33:50 +0530 Global Agriculture Under Pressure as Fertilizer Costs Surge Amid Conflict The escalation of conflict in the Middle East has triggered a surge in fertilizer prices, leaving farmers worldwide scrambling to secure supplies as the critical spring planting season approaches. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping route, has disrupted the flow of fertilizers and fuel, compounding existing challenges in global agriculture. The ongoing conflict in the Middle East threatens global food security by disrupting the supply of nitrogen fertilizers, which are crucial for producing half the world's food. The Persian Gulf, a key source of these fertilizers, faces challenges in delivery due to the shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz, leading to surging prices for fertilizers and related chemicals. The Strait of Hormuz, through which one-third of global fertilizer trade and 20% of export fuels pass, has become a chokepoint due to the conflict. Fertilizer plants in the region have shut down, and shipping routes have been severely disrupted. This could force farmers to reduce usage, lowering food supply and affordability. The situation highlights vulnerabilities from global interdependence, similar to the grain shortages caused by the Russia-Ukraine war. In addition, this has sent prices soaring, with urea—a key nitrogen-based fertilizer—experiencing sharp increases. In the United States, prices jumped from $516 to $683 per metric ton within days at the New Orleans import hub, the highest levels since late 2022. Analysts warn that prolonged disruptions could push prices even higher, potentially matching the peaks seen during the Russia-Ukraine war. A Critical Moment for Global Farmers The timing of the conflict could not be worse. Farmers in the Northern Hemisphere are preparing to fertilize their fields, while those in the Southern Hemisphere are readying for winter crop planting. Many were already grappling with low crop prices and high input costs. Now, the added pressure of fertilizer shortages and skyrocketing prices has darkened the outlook for the agricultural sector. The crisis comes at a critical time for Northern Hemisphere farmers preparing for spring planting, with American agriculture particularly strained due to earlier tariff-related fertilizer cost increases and limited global supply of urea despite recent tariff exemptions. The conflict in the Middle East could severely impact fertilizer supply, as five key exporters—Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Bahrain—rely on the Strait of Hormuz to export over one-third of global urea, nearly one-fourth of ammonia, and a significant share of phosphate fertilizers. This disruption could surpass the effects of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which already drove up fertilizer prices and reduced harvests. Farmers are echoing the frustration worldwide, especially growers who rely on imported fertilizers and diesel are facing tough decisions. Some are considering reducing fertilizer application rates or switching to less nutrient-intensive crops like soybeans instead of corn, which requires high nitrogen levels. Production Disruptions Amplify Shortages The Middle East, a significant hub for fertilizer production, has seen production cuts due to the conflict. Qatar Energy, operator of the world’s largest single-site urea plant, halted production after losing its natural gas feedstock following attacks on LNG facilities. Similarly, sulphur output—a critical component for phosphate fertilizers—has been reduced across the region. The Middle East, a significant hub for fertilizer production, has seen production cuts due to the conflict. Qatar Energy, operator of the world’s largest single-site urea plant, halted production after losing its natural gas feedstock following attacks on LNG facilities. Similarly, sulphur output—a critical component for phosphate fertilizers—has been reduced across the region. India is heavily reliant on Middle Eastern suppliers for 40% of its urea and phosphate fertilizers, but alternative sources like China are limited due to its export restrictions. Fertilizer prices have surged by 37% in markets like Egypt, and prolonged Gulf disruptions could lead to price spikes similar to those after the Russia-Ukraine war. This could force governments in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa to subsidize crops, increasing debt burdens and food prices. Global Market Tensions Even before the conflict, the fertilizer market was under strain. China, a major producer, had restricted exports to prioritize domestic needs, while European producers cut output due to high energy costs after losing access to cheap Russian gas. These pre-existing challenges, combined with the Middle East turmoil, have created a perfect storm. "The global fertilizer market was already tight, and this conflict has made it worse," said StoneX analyst Josh Linville. "We’ve lost a significant chunk of supply, and the ripple effects are being felt everywhere." Countries like Indonesia and Australia, heavily reliant on imported fertilizers, are also bracing for shortages. In Europe, Poland’s state-run fertilizer producer temporarily stopped taking orders, citing inflated production costs due to surging gas prices. Fertilizers traded in U.S. dollars have become more expensive in local currencies due to the dollar's strength, particularly impacting African farmers in 2023. Higher fertilizer prices could reduce yields, raise food costs, and increase malnutrition in poor countries. Farmers Face Tough Choices The uncertainty has prompted farmers to rethink their strategies. Small-scale farmers, particularly in the global south, are at greater risk. Many lack the resources to stockpile fertilizer or switch crops, leaving them vulnerable to price spikes. This could impact the production of crops like palm oil, where smallholders contribute significantly to output. Reduced fertilization could lower yields within months, further straining food supply chains. Sulfur, a key ingredient for phosphate fertilizers and metals, is largely stuck in the Gulf due to the Strait of Hormuz disruption, with nearly half of global supply affected. China and Indonesia rely heavily on Gulf sulfur for fertilizers and nickel production, while African agriculture also depends on it. Pre-existing low stocks and high prices have worsened the situation, with Morocco particularly vulnerable as a major user of sulfur for phosphate fertilizer production. Broader Implications While global grain reserves currently provide a buffer against immediate food shortages, prolonged disruptions could lead to higher food prices and inflationary pressures. Consumers, particularly in poorer countries, may face the brunt of these challenges. fertilizer trader are predicting that, if yields go down because farmers can’t afford fertilizer, there will be less food on the market. This could lead to inflationary shocks that hit consumers months down the line. As the situation unfolds, the agricultural sector remains on edge, with farmers and policymakers alike hoping for a swift resolution to prevent further destabilization of global food systems. ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3623/new-global-standard-for-farm-data-inside-faos-wca-2030-programme.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3623/new-global-standard-for-farm-data-inside-faos-wca-2030-programme.html Wed, 11 Mar 2026 11:15:25 +0530 In an exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Jairo Castano of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations explains how the World Programme for the Census of Agriculture 2030 will modernize agricultural censuses, strengthen data-driven policymaking, and support progress toward the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Jairo Castano, Senior Statistician and Leader of the Agricultural Censuses Team at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), discusses the global significance of the newly endorsed World Programme for the Census of Agriculture 2030 (WCA 2030) guidelines. Endorsed by the United Nations Statistical Commission, the programme establishes a new international statistical standard aimed at strengthening agricultural data governance and supporting evidence-based policymaking worldwide. Castano highlights how emerging technologies such as geospatial tools, online data systems, and artificial intelligence will transform the way agricultural census data is collected, validated, and used. He also explains how FAO is supporting countries—particularly developing economies—in building capacity to implement the programme while ensuring data quality and global comparability. Looking ahead, Castano emphasizes that WCA 2030 will play a crucial role in tracking agricultural transformation and monitoring progress toward the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. The WCA 2030 guidelines have now been endorsed as an international statistical standard. What strategic shift does this represent for global agricultural data governance and policymaking over the next decade? The UNSC’s endorsement of the WCA 2030 guidelines as an international statistical standard marks a strategic shift from agriculture being treated as a sectoral data domain to being governed as a core component of the global statistical system, with agreed norms on concepts, methods, and comparability. It signals a move toward integrated, policy‑driven data governance in which agricultural censuses are embedded within national statistical systems, and explicitly linked to benchmarking, accountability, and evidence‑based policymaking. Over the next decade (2026–2035), this positions structural agricultural data as a global public good, strengthening FAO’s stewardship role and enabling more coherent national and international decisions on food security, rural development, and agricultural transformation. The new programme emphasizes innovative technologies such as geospatial tools, online data collection, and artificial intelligence. How will these technologies transform the way agricultural census data is collected, validated, and utilized? By promoting the use of geospatial tools, online data collection, and artificial intelligence, WCA 2030 shifts agricultural censuses from slow, paper‑based operations to more timely, spatially explicit, and data‑integrated systems. Georeferencing and Earth observation improve coverage and consistency checks, online and mobile tools accelerate data capture and reduce respondent burden, and AI‑supported processes strengthen training, data validation, editing, and linkage with administrative and survey data. Together, these technologies enable faster production of higher‑quality, interoperable census data that can be more easily reused for policy analysis, monitoring, and targeting, rather than remaining static decennial snapshots. Many developing countries face capacity and infrastructure constraints when conducting large-scale agricultural censuses. How is FAO supporting Member countries to implement WCA 2030 effectively while ensuring data quality and comparability? FAO is supporting Member countries to implement WCA 2030 by combining normative guidance with hands‑on capacity development, tailored to different national contexts. This includes disseminating harmonized methodological guidelines, providing country‑level technical assistance for census planning and implementation, and organizing regional and national training workshops to strengthen skills in modern census methods, quality assurance, and the use of innovative technologies. By anchoring support in internationally agreed standards while allowing flexible adaptation to country capacities, FAO helps reduce implementation costs, improve data quality, and ensure that census results remain internationally comparable and policy‑relevant. The guidelines highlight the growing role of women farmers, aquaculture activities, and diversified farming systems. How will WCA 2030 help governments better capture these emerging dynamics in agriculture? WCA 2030 helps governments capture these emerging agricultural dynamics by updating concepts, definitions, and census content to better reflect the realities of modern farming systems. The guidelines strengthen the measurement of women’s roles by reinforcing the identification of agricultural holders and managers, enable the systematic inclusion or combination of aquaculture and forestry activities with agricultural censuses, and recognize increasingly diversified and mixed production systems within a single holding. By embedding these elements within internationally agreed standards and modular census designs, WCA 2030 allows countries to produce more nuanced, comparable structural data that reveal who farms, what activities are combined, and how agriculture is evolving beyond traditional crop‑based models. Agricultural census data increasingly underpins national strategies on food security, climate adaptation, and rural development. How can WCA 2030 strengthen evidence-based policymaking in these areas? WCA 2030 strengthens evidence‑based policymaking by providing high‑quality, internationally comparable structural data that serve as a stable foundation for food security, climate adaptation, and rural development strategies. By standardizing information on farm structures, land use, production systems, and labour, and by integrating agricultural censuses within national statistical systems, WCA 2030 enables governments to better target vulnerable areas and populations, design climate‑resilient interventions, and monitor structural change over time. The use of census data as a frame for follow‑up surveys further allows countries to link long‑term structural trends with faster‑changing policy variables, improving the coherence and credibility of policy decisions. With the introduction of anonymized microdata and interactive data dissemination tools, how does FAO envision expanding access to agricultural data for researchers, agribusinesses, and investors? Under WCA 2030, FAO envisages expanding access to agricultural data by promoting safe access to anonymized census microdata alongside modern, interactive dissemination tools that go beyond traditional tabulations. By encouraging countries to release anonymized microdata and by disseminating standardized structural census data through platforms such as FAOSTAT and microdata catalogues, FAO enables researchers, agribusinesses, and investors to conduct deeper, customized analyses while safeguarding confidentiality. Interactive web‑based tables, maps, and visualization tools further lower access barriers, allowing a wider range of users to explore agricultural structures, identify investment opportunities, and support innovation‑driven decision‑making based on official, high‑quality data. The WCA 2030 outlines 27 essential data items for all countries. How were these core indicators selected, and how do they reflect the evolving priorities of modern agriculture and food systems? The 27 essential data items in WCA 2030 were selected through extensive review of country experiences, expert consultations, and global user needs to define a minimum, universally relevant core dataset that all countries can collect through complete enumeration. These indicators focus on the fundamental structural characteristics of agricultural holdings—such as land, production activities, labour, and management—ensuring international comparability while remaining operationally feasible. At the same time, their composition reflects evolving priorities of modern agriculture by strengthening attention to gender roles, diversified production systems, and the integration of agriculture with forestry and aquaculture, positioning the census as a foundation for understanding structural transformation in contemporary food systems. Looking ahead to 2030 and beyond, what role do you see agricultural census data playing in tracking progress toward global commitments such as the Sustainable Development Goals and climate targets? Looking ahead to 2030 and beyond, agricultural census data under WCA 2030 will serve as a structural backbone for tracking progress toward the SDGs and climate commitments by providing consistent, comparable baselines on farm structures, land use, labour, and production systems. The census of agriculture supports the statistical system that monitors agricultural-related SDGs and provides the sampling frame for the agricultural survey programme and a benchmark for the national agricultural statistical system. Altogether allow countries to identify who is at risk of being left behind, monitor long‑term structural change relevant to food security and rural livelihoods, and anchor climate‑related indicators—such as exposure, adaptive capacity, and land management—within national statistical systems. By linking decennial census benchmarks with inter‑censal surveys and other data sources, WCA 2030 enables more credible monitoring of transformation pathways rather than one‑off reporting against global targets. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3622/digitizing-farm-balance-sheet-rwas-and-future-of-agri-finance.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3622/digitizing-farm-balance-sheet-rwas-and-future-of-agri-finance.html Tue, 10 Mar 2026 17:18:57 +0530 In an exclusive conversation with AgroSpectrum, Dimitra Founder & CEO Jon Trask explains why tokenized real-world assets, blockchain-backed MRV and carbon markets could reshape global agricultural finance Jon Trask discusses how tokenized real-world assets (RWAs) are transitioning from speculative blockchain experiments into institutional-grade financial infrastructure for agriculture. Drawing from Dimitra’s work across emerging markets and its collaboration with MANTRA, Trask highlights how verified farm data, MRV frameworks, and blockchain technology can convert agricultural production, carbon credits, and supply-chain outputs into investable digital assets. He explains that tokenization can address agriculture’s historic paradox of being asset-rich but liquidity-poor, enabling farmers and cooperatives to access new capital pools while improving transparency for investors. The interview also explores the operational realities of scaling agricultural RWAs—from satellite monitoring and IoT-driven data validation to governance structures required for institutional compliance. Looking ahead, Trask argues that tokenized agriculture will likely become part of the core financial infrastructure of global food systems, enabling climate-aligned capital and more efficient, data-driven agricultural markets. At Consensus Hong Kong, industry heavyweights signaled that tokenized real-world assets have crossed from speculation into structural utility. From your vantage point in agriculture, what evidence convinces you that RWAs are entering a long-term institutional cycle rather than a hype-driven one?  The clearest signal we see is the replacement of speculative interest with structural pressure, but in agriculture that pressure is now tied to a very specific outcome: turning physical production into an investable, financeable digital asset. Traceability and MRV can exist without an RWA, but an RWA becomes the bridge between “proof” and “capital” by packaging verified production, performance, and delivery rights into a standardized instrument that institutions can underwrite. Tokenized agricultural RWAs backed by verifiable data help in three concrete ways. First, they make financing underwritable: when the asset is linked to auditable farm and supply-chain records, investors can price risk and deploy capital against real collateral or forward flows (inventory, receivables, offtake agreements), rather than relying on informal guarantees. Second, they improve enforceability and transparency: the same data that supports traceability becomes the evidence layer for covenants, performance triggers, and monitoring, reducing fraud risk and transaction costs for lenders and development finance. Third, they broaden access: producers and cooperatives can use standardized, data-backed RWAs to reach new pools of capital like institutions, development banks, and corporates seeking measurable climate and supply-chain outcomes, without requiring each financier to rebuild due diligence from scratch. Conversations in this space have also shifted. Now, instead of focusing solely on token mechanics, investors want to know about MRV (Measurement, Reporting, and Verification) standards, risk frameworks, legal enforceability, and alignment with emerging carbon and sustainability regulations, because those are the prerequisites for financing at scale. This shift tells us the market is maturing: less about short-term trading incentives, and more about building the infrastructure that converts verified agricultural activity into long-term institutional-grade investment products. Agriculture has always been asset-rich but liquidity-poor. How does bringing farmland, inputs, harvests, and carbon credits on-chain fundamentally alter capital formation for producers—especially in emerging markets?  Agriculture has historically been asset-rich but liquidity-poor because the real economic value of land, inputs, outputs, and ecosystem services is difficult to quantify, verify, and transact, especially for smallholder farmers operating under strained and unpredictable conditions. By bringing agricultural assets on-chain, we can capture, verify, and mobilize that value in ways traditional systems have struggled to do, particularly for farmers. When farmland, inputs, harvests, and carbon credits are recorded on-chain, they become trusted and verifiable digital assets that can be tokenized, used as collateral, traded, or tied to performance-based financing. This on-chain asset representation enables farmers to monetize not only what they grow, but how they grow it, unlocking new pathways to climate finance and scalable capital formation. This is particularly true in emerging markets, where producers often lack formal credit histories.  It also moves agriculture beyond a financing model tied only to yield and land value. For instance, carbon credits become liquid climate assets. This, in itself, allows producers to diversify their financing. So, while investors are presented with the opportunity to fund climate-positive agriculture, producers are rewarded for adopting sustainable practices that generate verified, tradeable value. Your partnership with MANTRA aimed to verify carbon credits and tokenize agricultural assets across South America. What did that initiative reveal about institutional appetite for on-chain agricultural RWAs—and the operational hurdles of executing at regional scale?  The partnership with MANTRA revealed that institutional appetite for on-chain agricultural RWAs is real, but highly conditional—and it is becoming more real as projects move from pilots into execution. Investors engage when assets are backed by verifiable data, clear governance, and measurable outcomes, particularly around carbon integrity and sustainability metrics. The conversation is no longer about tokenization as a concept; it is about whether the underlying infrastructure and the legal/financial structure are credible enough to support real-world adoption at scale. It also made clear that, beyond technology, we must offer an opportunity where investors are willing to assume the risk in a way that fits their mandate. In practice, that means structuring investable products with clear risk allocation, enforceable rights, and monitoring-based controls, often combining traceability, MRV, and real cash-flow or collateral mechanisms. This takes time, and institutions typically require iteration on the structure, documentation, and governance as the project advances, and adjustments are often needed along the process as field realities, regulatory requirements, and data maturity become clearer. Executing at regional scale highlighted how operationally complex agriculture still is. Across South America, producers operate under different regulatory environments, data standards, and levels of digital maturity. Verifying carbon credits or tokenizing agricultural assets requires strong MRV frameworks, consistent data collection methodologies, and ground-level partnerships. Technology is only one part of the equation; alignment between farmers, cooperatives, regulators, and other stakeholders, plus the patience to refine the structure over time, is what turns on-chain RWAs into scalable, institutional-grade deployments. Tokenization promises transparency and efficiency—but agriculture is fragmented and analog. What infrastructure layers (data validation, satellite monitoring, IoT, local governance) are essential before RWAs in farming can meet institutional compliance standards?  The crucial piece of this puzzle precedes tokenization. Before real-world agricultural assets can meet institutional compliance standards, the underlying data infrastructure must be robust, verifiable, and transparent. Without reliable ground-truth data, on-chain representation can not withstand institutional scrutiny. The next critical layer is multi-source validation. Satellite monitoring provides independent verification of land use, crop health, and deforestation risk. IoT devices and mobile agronomic tools contribute real-time insights into inputs, yields, and environmental performance. These data streams must be cross-referenced and time-stamped to create an auditable trail. Institutions require defensible MRV frameworks, meaning data must be consistent, tamper-evident, and aligned with emerging regulatory standards for carbon, sustainability, and supply chain traceability.  Finally, local governance and regulatory compliance are essential. Institutional adoption depends not only on technical integrity but also on legal certainty and local stakeholder alignment. With these three factors in place, agricultural RWAs become credible digital representations of real-world activity that can meet compliance expectations and operate at scale. Carbon markets have faced credibility challenges. How does blockchain-based verification improve integrity, and can tokenized agricultural carbon credits realistically meet the scrutiny of global regulators and institutional buyers?  Blockchain-based verification improves integrity by ensuring that once key events and evidence are recorded, they cannot be altered retroactively. That immutability is essential, but on its own it does not solve the credibility problem. The real integrity comes from robust MRV made up of sound methodologies, high-quality field data, third-party auditability, and consistent monitoring. In that context, blockchain is the final credibility layer: it anchors MRV evidence, custody, and credit lifecycle events in a tamper-resistant record, reducing disputes and making reviews faster and more defensible. At Dimitra, we build on that foundation by combining blockchain with AI, IoT, and satellite-based MRV systems so data is captured and validated as close to the source as possible and then permanently attested on-chain. This creates field-level traceability and a practical verification trail that allows institutional buyers and regulators to interrogate the methodology, monitoring outputs, audit logs, issuance, transfers, and retirement records without relying on opaque, manually curated files.  Tokenized agricultural carbon credits can meet global scrutiny, but only when they are issued under recognized standards, backed by rigorous MRV and governance, and structured to support independent auditing and regulatory reporting. In other words, blockchain is not the goal. It is the mechanism that makes strong MRV harder to tamper with and easier to trust at scale. Institutional investors are now seeking yield tied to real economic activity. How does agricultural RWA tokenization compare—on risk, volatility, and return profile—to traditional agri-finance instruments?  For investors, agriculture has always offered yield anchored in productive, real-world activity. However, traditional agri-finance instruments have historically relied on fragmented reporting, periodic audits, and opaque risk assessment. In comparison, Tokenized RWAs, when built on verified field data, satellite monitoring, and blockchain technology, allow risk to be measured continuously. While this doesn’t mitigate the risks inherent to agricultural output (i.e., weather, disease, geopolitical tension), it facilitates greater transparency, which can reduce fraud risk and enable more dynamic risk pricing. Especially in emerging markets, where perceived risk is often inflated due to limited data, structured digital verification can narrow the risk premium and create more accurate return expectations. Ultimately, tokenization connects stakeholders more directly to real agricultural performance, improving visibility into how value is created and how risk is mitigated over time. Smallholder inclusion remains a central narrative. How do you ensure that tokenization empowers farmers with cheaper capital and better market access—rather than concentrating value among platforms and global investors?  Smallholder inclusion is not a narrative at Dimitra; it’s fundamental to our architecture, and one of the hardest parts is simply reaching farmers and sustaining participation at scale. That’s why we don’t try to “onboard farmers” in isolation. We structure projects through cooperatives, NGOs, and local organizations that farmers already trust and interact with, because those partners are essential for field operations, adoption, training, and ongoing data quality. Our approach is designed to make the value farmers already create visible, verifiable, and measurable. It starts with farmer-owned data captured at the field level and transparent value attribution, so any tokenized asset, whether tied to harvests, receivables, or carbon outcomes, originates from and is traceable to the producer, with clear rules on how value is shared. Tokenization only makes sense if it is linked to real benefits, like cheaper capital through underwritable evidence and risk reduction, and better market access by enabling compliance and buyer-ready traceability. By creating verifiable digital records at the farm level, we give farmers a structured way to document how they operate and what they produce, which lowers due diligence costs for lenders and buyers and reduces the information asymmetry that drives high financing costs. We also design governance and distribution so value doesn’t concentrate at the platform level through transparent fee structures, farmer-level attribution, and mechanisms that scale farmer upside as participation grows. The goal is a system where capital and market premiums flow back to farmers because their data and outcomes make the asset investable, not a system where tokenization becomes an extractive layer on top of their work. Regulatory clarity around digital assets is still evolving. What jurisdictions are best positioned to lead in agricultural RWAs, and how critical is harmonized global policy for scaling cross-border tokenized commodity markets?  In order to achieve impactful adoption and scale effectively, we believe in evaluating each jurisdiction on an individual basis. This means taking the social, legal, political, geographical, and cultural context of each individual jurisdiction into careful, specific consideration, as opposed to broadly cross-comparing landscapes.  While we also appreciate that full global harmonization of policy would accelerate adoption, we are not naive to the fact that the probability of this in the short term is low and will probably take many years to achieve. In the interim, we must accept the current reality with patience and work within the confines of each country’s legislative and regulatory boundaries. Looking ahead five to ten years, do you see tokenized agriculture becoming core infrastructure for global food systems finance —or a parallel alternative market serving climate-aligned capital pools?   I believe that tokenized agriculture will become part of the core infrastructure rather than a parallel alternative market. Agricultural systems are already moving towards greater transparency, traceability, and data-driven compliance. Tokenization is a practical way to make those systems more interoperable and verifiable. It won’t replace existing markets overnight, but it will increasingly sit alongside them as a digital layer that improves how agricultural activity is recorded, verified, and exchanged across global supply chains. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3621/safety-science-behind-cultivated-meat.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3621/safety-science-behind-cultivated-meat.html Mon, 09 Mar 2026 14:44:03 +0530 Dr. William Chen discusses NAMs, AI, and the future of risk assessment for cell-based foods With cultivated meat emerging as one of the most promising innovations in alternative proteins, regulators and scientists worldwide are working to establish robust safety frameworks for these novel foods. Unlike conventional meat, cultivated meat is produced through cell culture and advanced bioprocessing technologies, raising new questions around safety assessment, regulatory oversight, and long-term consumer exposure. In an exclusive interview with AgroSpectrum, Dr. William Chen, Michael Fam Endowed Professor at Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, explains that existing regulatory systems largely focus on hazard identification within production processes, but may not fully capture the complexities of cell-based foods. He advocates for the adoption of food-relevant New Approach Methodologies (NAMs)—combined with AI-driven predictive toxicology and systems biology—to enable more comprehensive risk assessment while supporting innovation and global regulatory harmonization. Cultivated meat challenges decades of conventional food safety doctrine. Are existing risk assessment frameworks fundamentally fit for purpose—or do they require a regulatory reset built specifically for cell-based systems? The main challenge for cultivated meat industry is to scale up. The scale up is not just about producing more animal cells (these are not muscle cells like in the meat) in the bioreactor, but to produce large amount of differentiated muscle cells that function like meat. Current application dossier for regulatory approval generally focuses more on the production system (bioreactor), including contaminations in culture medium from the environment (microbes) or new components from replacement of animal serum by various substances. My sense is that this is important but it remains as providing a list of potential hazards without any proper risk assessment (importantly: Hazard May Not Be Risk). The listing of the potential hazards is currently followed by searching what has been known about their risk profile from the existing publications, rather than assessing their risk by proper technology (see NAMs in the later part of my comments). More attention should be placed in the safety assessment of differentiated muscle cells, starting with the emerging New Approach Methodologies (NAMs). This is an animal-free in vitro testing system developed for risk assessment of cosmetics and environment pollutants. New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) are gaining traction in pharmaceuticals and toxicology. How can NAMs—such as in vitro assays, computational modeling, and omics-based profiling—be credibly adapted for cultivated meat safety validation? Many are trying to simply apply such NAMs (including in vitro assays, computational modeling, and omics-based profiling) to food safety risk assessment. However, there are two fundamental differences between food and cosmetics/environment pollutants: mixture (foods seldom exist as one ingredient) and digestion (enzymes in the digestive system break down food through hydrolysis which change the potential toxicity and allergenicity in foods). For reference, risk assessment of cosmetics and environment pollutants usually deals with single molecules which do not go through our digestive system. These two differences need to be reflected in the food-relevant NAMs for the data interpretation of food safety risk assessment to be useful and meaningful. The production process is the product. In cultivated meat, where bioprocessing conditions shape final composition, how should regulators evaluate variability across cell lines, growth media, and scaffold materials? Proper application of food-relevant NAMs should generate differential risk assessment data based on the conditions of cultivated meat product (cell lines, growth media, and scaffold materials). Again, most of current literature and published papers on cultivated meat stays at the stage of Hazard Identification, which is the first step of flow risk assessment. NAMs application is moving the needle as we are now talking about Hazard Characterization. There are 2 other important components involving consumers for the proper food safety assessment: Exposure Assessment and Risk Characterization. But food-relevant NAMs represents an important step forward to cultivated meat safety risk assessment. Transparency versus proprietary protection remains a tension. How can companies safeguard intellectual property while providing regulators with sufficient data for rigorous, science-based risk assessment? Companies may provide cultivated meat product for NAMs analysis through a neutral party (for example, Singapore Future-Ready Food Safety Hub – FRESH). Regulatory approval would now shift to analysing the risk assessment data generated from the NAMs, rather then scrutinizing the list of components in the respective cultivated meat production, as such list is still the hazard identification but means little to the safety risk assessment. This shift would then help company protect their IP to a large extent.   Global regulatory divergence is emerging. With Singapore among the first movers in approving cultivated meat, what lessons can other jurisdictions draw from its science-driven framework—and where are harmonization gaps widening? Working with global organizations (FAO, WHO among others) would help us bridge the gap in global regulatory divergence. One example is the Joint Action Plan between WHO and NTU Singapore on NAMs application in novel foods. Through the joint action  plan, there would be greater communications on work done in Singapore and provide greater transparency for discussion and collaboration among regulatory agencies. This would then contribute to the harmonization of the food safety risk assessment  across different countries. Public trust is as critical as scientific validation. What role should independent academic labs and open-data consortia play in stress-testing safety claims and avoiding regulatory capture? Having a neutral and trusted party such as FRESH involved in the food safety risk assessment, trusted with its technology innovations and partnerships with stakeholders in both public and private sectors, would enhance public trust. Long-term exposure data for novel proteins is inherently limited. How can predictive toxicology, AI-driven modeling, and systems biology reduce uncertainty without delaying innovation? While food-relevant NAMs is a huge step forward to food safety risk assessment, it is not the holy grail for the novel food safety assurance. What NAMs does is more or less like a first round of fast and cost-effective profiling of potential risks in an in vitro setting.  As it is animal-free, exposure studies in consumers are needed to validate the NAMs data but much less in sample size. Once in the consumer setting, variability in consumer profile (genetic makeup, composition of gut microbiome) and the resulting data would increase dramatically. Here machine learning tools combined with systems biology approach would be extremely important for the predictive toxicology. Looking a decade ahead, do you foresee cultivated meat safety assessments becoming more dynamic and real-time—embedded within digital bioprocess monitoring systems—rather than relying solely on static pre-market approvals? Certainly. Current pre-market approval process are also evolving with the advances in technology. Through the ongoing collaboration between the Singapore Food Agency and FRESH, I see a huge potential in moving the cultivated meat safety risk assessment from the current way of hazard identification (list of potential hazards and evaluate their potential risk based on what others have done in a different context, e.g. most likely environmental pollutants) to food-relevant characterization (NAMs) to exposure assessment. More importantly, proper risk assessment of cultivated meat product should be expanded in hybrid food products where cultivated meat is an ingredient. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agropsectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3618/24-mile-chokepoint-that-moves-world.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3618/24-mile-chokepoint-that-moves-world.html Thu, 05 Mar 2026 18:17:20 +0530 Tensions around the Strait of Hormuz are rattling oil markets, disrupting shipping networks and exposing fragile fertilizer supply chains that underpin global food production The narrow waters of the Strait of Hormuz have long been one of the world’s most strategically sensitive maritime corridors. Now, as tensions flare across the Middle East following unprecedented joint military strikes by the United States and Israel on Iran, the waterway has once again emerged as the epicenter of a rapidly escalating global economic shock. Oil prices are climbing. Shipping companies are scrambling to reroute vessels. Freight costs and insurance premiums are surging. And fertilizer markets—already fragile—are bracing for another wave of volatility. For countries like India, which depend heavily on both Middle Eastern energy and imported agricultural inputs, the repercussions could ripple far beyond energy markets, touching everything from food production and agricultural costs to inflation and trade logistics. The crisis underscores a stark reality of the global economy: a sliver of water barely 24 miles wide can still dictate the fortunes of nations. A Strategic Chokepoint Under Pressure Stretching roughly 100 miles between Iran in the north and the coastlines of Oman and the United Arab Emirates in the south, the Strait of Hormuz has long occupied a singular place in the architecture of the global energy system. Few geographic features exert such disproportionate influence over the world economy. On a map it appears as little more than a thin ribbon of water separating the Persian Gulf from the open ocean. In reality, it functions as one of the most consequential arteries of global commerce. Disruption or heightened risk in the Strait of Hormuz can significantly affect India’s agri trade flows, as fertilizers, sulphur, phosphoric acid and other critical inputs face longer transit times, higher freight rates and insurance premiums. Sulphur prices are especially vulnerable, since a large share of global sulphur is recovered from Middle Eastern oil and gas processing; any slowdown or shipping disruption can tighten supply and spike prices for sulphur-based fertilizers. For India, this translates into higher nutrient costs, pressure on fertilizer subsidies, and potential delays during key sowing seasons. The overall risk is not a shortage-driven crisis, but a cost- and timing-driven shock to agricultural supply chains. --- Dr Rahul Mirchandani, Chairman, Aries Agro At its narrowest point, the strait measures just 24 miles across—barely the distance of a short highway commute. Yet through this slender maritime corridor flows close to 20 percent of the world’s crude oil supply, an extraordinary concentration of energy trade passing through a single chokepoint. Every day, vast fleets of tankers carrying millions of barrels of oil move through these waters, transporting crude from the Persian Gulf’s dominant producers—Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates—toward energy-hungry economies in Asia, Europe and beyond. The significance of the strait lies not only in the volume of oil that moves through it, but in the absence of credible alternatives. Pipelines exist that bypass the corridor, including routes across Saudi Arabia and the UAE, yet their combined capacity falls far short of replacing the immense flow handled by maritime tankers. The geography of the region has effectively locked the global energy system into dependence on this narrow passage. That dependence transforms the strait into something more than a shipping lane—it becomes a pressure point where geopolitics and economics intersect. Any disruption, whether from military confrontation, maritime blockades, sabotage or even heightened security threats, reverberates far beyond the Gulf. Traders, insurers and shipping companies monitor developments in the strait with extraordinary sensitivity because even small risks can translate into immediate market reactions. “Exports to the Middle East are effectively on hold for now as shipping companies reassess security risks in the Gulf. Carriers are likely to impose additional insurance and war-risk surcharges, which will inevitably make imports more expensive. If the situation persists, the combined effect of higher freight costs, longer transit times and elevated insurance premiums could significantly raise the cost of fertilizers and other agricultural inputs for countries like India.” ---- Rajib Chakraborty, National President, SFIA History has repeatedly shown how fragile this equilibrium can be. Periods of tension in the Gulf—from the tanker wars of the 1980s to more recent confrontations between regional powers—have demonstrated how quickly shipping routes can become contested and how rapidly energy markets respond. Today, that sensitivity remains acute. Analysts warn that even the threat of closure—without a single tanker being physically blocked—could push crude prices sharply higher as traders price in the possibility of disrupted supply. Some estimates suggest that oil could surge toward $108 per barrel if shipments through the strait were significantly curtailed. Recent movements in energy markets suggest investors are already factoring in that risk. The mere possibility of instability in the Strait of Hormuz is enough to ripple through futures markets, insurance premiums and freight rates, underscoring how profoundly the global economy still depends on the safe passage of ships through a corridor barely two dozen miles wide. In an era defined by complex supply chains and interconnected markets, the world’s energy lifeline still runs through one narrow stretch of water—and the consequences of instability there rarely remain confined to the region. Oil Markets React Global crude markets wasted little time registering the shock. As geopolitical tensions escalated across the Gulf, oil prices moved almost instantly, reflecting how sensitive energy markets remain to developments around the Strait of Hormuz. Futures linked to West Texas Intermediate crude surged more than 6 percent, climbing above $71 per barrel—their highest level in over eight months. At one stage during trading, prices spiked nearly 10 percent, a sharp intraday surge that underscored the market’s growing anxiety about potential supply disruptions. Yet traders say the rally is not driven by immediate shortages of crude. Rather, it reflects a rapidly expanding geopolitical risk premium—the additional cost markets attach to the possibility that instability in the Persian Gulf could threaten one of the world’s most vital energy corridors. The Gulf remains the epicenter of global oil exports. When tensions rise in a region responsible for such a large share of global supply, markets react with remarkable speed. Shipping data already suggests that tanker operators are recalibrating their strategies—adjusting routes, revising security protocols, and factoring higher risk into charter rates. As insurers reassess exposure in a potential conflict zone, maritime insurance premiums are also beginning to climb. For oil-importing economies, the implications are immediate and unavoidable. Rising freight costs, higher insurance charges and a swelling geopolitical risk premium combine to push energy bills upward, transmitting the shock from the Gulf directly into global inflation and trade flows. India’s Energy Vulnerability Few economies illustrate the stakes of Gulf instability more starkly than India. Roughly half of India’s crude oil imports—between 2.5 and 2.7 million barrels per day—move through the Strait of Hormuz, making the narrow corridor one of the most critical arteries in the country’s energy supply chain. These shipments originate largely from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait—producers that together anchor India’s long-standing energy relationship with the Persian Gulf. Any sustained disruption to maritime traffic through the strait would therefore reverberate quickly through India’s economy. The country’s vast refining sector remains deeply intertwined with Middle Eastern crude flows. Although New Delhi has diversified supply in recent years—most notably by ramping up purchases from Russia—the Gulf continues to form the backbone of its energy strategy. A surge in crude prices would ripple through the economy with speed. Fuel costs feed directly into transportation networks, manufacturing supply chains and logistics, amplifying inflationary pressures across sectors. In a country where energy prices carry both economic and political sensitivity, volatility in the Gulf rarely remains confined to commodity markets for long. Yet oil is only one layer of the vulnerability. The same sea lanes that carry crude tankers also support a sprawling web of container shipping, agricultural commodities and fertilizer shipments—cargoes that are just as critical to India’s economic stability and food security as energy itself. Shipping Lines Pull Back Long before any formal closure of sea lanes, the global shipping industry has begun behaving as though the risk is already real. As tensions rise around the Strait of Hormuz and the wider Persian Gulf, some of the world’s largest container carriers are quietly redrawing their maritime maps—suspending cargo bookings, rerouting vessels and issuing emergency advisories to fleets navigating one of the world’s most critical trade corridors. The response has been swift and coordinated. The Geneva-based shipping giant MSC Mediterranean Shipping Company announced on March 1 that it was suspending all bookings for worldwide cargo bound for the Middle East until further notice, a move that effectively freezes a significant portion of container traffic headed toward Gulf ports. Meanwhile, Danish logistics powerhouse Maersk confirmed that two of its major shipping services—ME11 and MECL, which connect the Middle East and India with Mediterranean and U.S. markets—would be rerouted around the Cape of Good Hope. While safer, the diversion dramatically extends sailing distances between Asia, Europe and the Americas, adding days—sometimes weeks—to global shipping schedules. France’s maritime heavyweight CMA CGM has taken an even more sweeping step. Citing escalating operational and security constraints, the company halted all refrigerated container bookings for a wide swath of Middle Eastern destinations including Iraq, Bahrain, Kuwait, Yemen, Qatar, Oman, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt (Port of Ain Sokhna), Djibouti, Sudan and Eritrea. Across the Gulf itself, caution has hardened into operational directives. China’s state-backed carrier COSCO Shipping has instructed vessels already inside the Gulf to proceed to safer waters and remain on standby until security conditions stabilize. German shipping line Hapag‑Lloyd—the world’s fifth-largest container shipping company—has gone further still, suspending all transit through the strait. Ships already operating within the Gulf have reportedly been ordered to seek shelter and await further instructions. Taken together, these moves amount to a quiet but profound shift in global maritime behavior. Without a single official blockade being declared, the shipping industry is already acting as though one of the world’s most vital trade corridors has become dangerously uncertain. Freight Costs Begin to Spike As vessels quietly alter their routes and insurers reassess the risks of operating in a rapidly militarizing maritime corridor, the financial consequences are already rippling through global shipping markets. Freight rates are beginning to climb. Shipping companies have introduced what is known as an Emergency Conflict Surcharge (ECS)—a temporary levy designed to compensate carriers for the sharply elevated risks of operating near the Strait of Hormuz and the wider Persian Gulf. The new charges are steep and immediate. Current ECS levels include $2,000 per 20-foot container, $3,000 per 40-foot container, and $4,000 for refrigerated or specialized containers, the latter particularly significant for food, pharmaceutical and agricultural shipments that depend on temperature-controlled transport. These surcharges are only part of the emerging cost structure. Maritime insurers are simultaneously recalibrating risk assessments for ships entering Gulf waters, prompting additional War Risk Surcharges across multiple routes. German carrier Hapag-Lloyd has already confirmed the introduction of such fees, setting charges at $1,500 per TEU for standard containers and $3,500 per container for refrigerated units and specialized equipment. For exporters and importers, the financial arithmetic escalates quickly. Every additional surcharge compounds the cost of moving goods through already strained supply chains. Longer detours around the Cape of Good Hope increase fuel consumption and voyage durations, while rising insurance premiums add another layer of expense. The result is a mounting logistical squeeze that many trade analysts say is beginning to resemble the cascading disruptions witnessed during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic—when shipping delays, container shortages and freight inflation reverberated across the global economy. In today’s case, however, the trigger is not a virus but geopolitics—and a narrow maritime corridor whose instability can still reshape the economics of global trade. Port Disruptions and Regional Bottlenecks The stress is not confined to oil tankers and container vessels navigating the narrow waters of the Strait of Hormuz. It is increasingly visible across the wider logistics architecture of the Gulf, where some of the world’s most important trade hubs are beginning to feel the strain. At the center of this network lies Jebel Ali Port—one of the largest container transshipment complexes on the planet and a crucial redistribution gateway linking Asia, Africa and Europe. Reports indicate that the port has experienced temporary operational halts following conflict-related blasts and debris incidents in the region, forcing precautionary pauses in port activity. Even short disruptions at such strategic hubs can send shockwaves through global supply chains. Ports like Jebel Ali operate as the logistical heartbeat of the Gulf’s “free-zone” trade ecosystem, where cargo arriving from Asia is redistributed onward to markets across the Middle East, Africa and the Mediterranean. When these nodes slow down—even briefly—the consequences propagate outward through shipping schedules, container availability and delivery timelines. For exporters thousands of miles away, the effects can be immediate. Indian exporters who rely heavily on Gulf transshipment routes warn that the growing instability could lengthen transit times and inject fresh uncertainty into key export corridors connecting South Asia with Europe and Africa. Delays at a single hub can cascade through multiple supply chains, forcing cargo to wait for connecting vessels, rerouted containers or alternative port calls. Air logistics may offer little relief. With parts of regional airspace subject to potential restrictions or heightened security oversight, cargo flights could face longer routes or operational constraints—tightening supply chains even further. Yet amid the turbulence engulfing oil markets and container shipping, one of the most consequential ripple effects may emerge in a sector far removed from tankers and port cranes. The next shock could arrive in the global fertilizer market. Fertilizer Markets Brace for Impact Beyond oil tankers and container vessels, another critical supply chain runs quietly through the waters of the Persian Gulf—one that ultimately feeds the world. The Middle East plays a pivotal role in global fertilizer production, particularly for nitrogen-based fertilizers such as urea. Countries across the region have built vast petrochemical complexes that convert natural gas into fertilizers shipped to agricultural markets around the world. Among them, Iran occupies a significant position. The country has a urea production capacity of roughly 9 million tonnes per year, exporting around 5 million tonnes annually to international markets. Iranian urea is frequently among the lowest-priced supplies globally, making it an important source for fertilizer-importing countries—including India. Any disruption to these exports—whether triggered by shipping constraints, sanctions pressure, or logistical bottlenecks across the Strait of Hormuz—can quickly ripple through global fertilizer markets. Analysts warn that instability along these maritime routes could push prices higher across the entire fertilizer spectrum: urea, MOP (muriate of potash), DAP (di-ammonium phosphate) and NPK fertilizers. For India, the implications are particularly significant. The country is among the world’s largest consumers of agricultural nutrients, and its food security is deeply intertwined with the reliability of international fertilizer supply chains. In the fiscal year 2024–25, India imported 160.29 lakh metric tonnes of bulk fertilizers, underscoring the enormous scale of its dependence on global trade. These imports underpin the productivity of one of the world’s largest agricultural systems—supporting everything from wheat and rice cultivation to oilseeds and horticulture. But a closer examination of India’s fertilizer import structure reveals something more consequential. Many of these supply lines run directly through the same geopolitical fault lines now emerging across the Gulf. Urea Imports and Gulf Dependence Urea dominates India’s fertilizer import basket. Total imports amount to 56.47 LMT, making it the largest category in the country’s fertilizer trade. The supply structure reveals a striking concentration in Gulf producers. Oman supplies 26.13 LMT, making it India’s largest supplier by far. Russia provides 9.23 LMT, while Saudi Arabia contributes 5.38 LMT and Qatar exports 3.70 LMT. Taken together, Oman, Saudi Arabia and Qatar account for 35.21 LMT—around 62.35 percent of India’s total urea imports. This means that nearly two-thirds of India’s most critical fertilizer flows from countries located in or near the Gulf region. If shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz were disrupted, the consequences for India’s fertilizer supply chain could be immediate. MOP Import Patterns Muriate of potash (MOP) is the second-largest fertilizer import category at 45.69 LMT. Major suppliers include Saudi Arabia (19.05 LMT) and Morocco (10.74 LMT), alongside smaller shipments from China and Jordan (2.39 LMT). Imports from Saudi Arabia and Jordan together total 21.44 LMT, representing 46.92 percent of India’s MOP imports. While this share is lower than that of urea, it still reflects a substantial reliance on suppliers connected to West Asia. DAP Supply Structure DAP imports total 35.41 LMT, and the supply structure is more geographically diversified. Russia dominates with 18.00 LMT, while Jordan supplies 3.01 LMT and Israel contributes 2.80 LMT. Gulf-region contributions are relatively smaller—5.81 LMT, or 16.41 percent of total DAP imports. This diversification provides a measure of resilience, though it also highlights Russia’s expanding role in global fertilizer supply chains. NPK Fertilizer Imports NPK fertilizer imports amount to 22.72 LMT, the smallest category among the four. Here again Russia dominates with 18.27 LMT, followed by Saudi Arabia with 3.40 LMT, while China supplies a minor share. The Gulf contribution therefore totals 3.40 LMT, accounting for 14.96 percent of India’s NPK imports. Structural Vulnerabilities in the Supply Chain Viewed together, the import data reveals a set of structural vulnerabilities that extend far beyond simple trade statistics. Beneath the numbers lies a complex web of geopolitical exposure linking India’s agricultural system to two of the world’s most strategically sensitive regions—the Persian Gulf and Russia. The most striking dependency appears in urea, where India’s reliance on Gulf suppliers exceeds 62 percent. Countries such as Oman, Saudi Arabia and Qatar together account for the overwhelming share of shipments, tying India’s most critical fertilizer directly to the stability of trade routes that pass through the Strait of Hormuz. A similar—though slightly less concentrated—pattern emerges in MOP (muriate of potash) imports. Nearly 47 percent of India’s supply originates from Gulf-linked producers, notably Saudi Arabia and Jordan. While additional supplies arrive from producers such as Morocco and China, the Gulf remains a crucial pillar of the supply chain. The picture shifts somewhat for DAP and NPK fertilizers, where the sourcing base is more geographically diversified. Here, Russia has emerged as the dominant supplier, particularly in NPK and a substantial share of DAP imports, reflecting Moscow’s growing footprint in global fertilizer markets. Yet diversification does not necessarily eliminate risk. Instead, it redistributes it across multiple geopolitical fault lines. In practical terms, India’s fertilizer supply chain now sits at the intersection of two volatile arenas. Tensions in the Gulf can disrupt maritime routes through the Strait of Hormuz. Diplomatic shifts or sanctions regimes can reshape exports from Russia. Meanwhile, the mechanics of global shipping—freight rates, insurance premiums and vessel availability—can change almost overnight when conflict alters maritime risk calculations. Each of these pressures ultimately converges in a single place: fertilizer prices. If vessels are forced onto longer routes, if insurers impose war-risk premiums, or if supply chains fragment under geopolitical strain, the cost of nutrients essential to agricultural production rises accordingly—transmitting geopolitical instability directly into the economics of farming and food production. The Global Stakes The world has faced crises in these waters before—from the tanker wars of the 1980s to the recurring standoffs between Iran and Western powers. Yet the stakes today may be even higher. Global supply chains are now more tightly interwoven than at any point in modern economic history. Energy markets respond instantly to geopolitical tremors, while food systems—often overlooked in strategic debates—depend heavily on the uninterrupted movement of fertilizers and agricultural inputs across oceans. At the center of this delicate architecture lies the Strait of Hormuz. Should tensions escalate further—or should the passage become unsafe for commercial shipping even temporarily—the consequences would extend far beyond the Middle East. Oil prices could spike sharply as traders scramble to price in supply risks. Shipping lanes could remain disrupted as vessels reroute around conflict zones, driving up freight costs and insurance premiums. Fertilizer markets, already sensitive to logistics disruptions, could tighten rapidly, amplifying pressure on global food production. The resulting shock would not remain confined to commodity markets. It would ripple outward—through inflation, trade balances and food security—reverberating across economies already strained by geopolitical fragmentation and fragile supply chains. For now, the world’s attention remains fixed on a narrow corridor of water where geopolitics, energy security and global trade converge. History offers a clear lesson: what unfolds in the Strait of Hormuz rarely stays there. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3616/ai-at-root-zone-netafims-bold-leap-with-dosing-5g.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3616/ai-at-root-zone-netafims-bold-leap-with-dosing-5g.html Wed, 04 Mar 2026 11:56:00 +0530 In an exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Abed Masarwa, VP Products at Netafim, Israel, says the new platform marks a shift from programmable dosing to self-learning nutrient management. Abed Masarwa, describes Dosing 5G as both a major technology leap and a strategic pivot toward AI-driven autonomous fertigation, moving beyond predefined recipes to real-time adaptive nutrient management. Launched by Orbia Advance Corporation, S.A.B. de C.V.’s Precision Agriculture business, the new range—FertiKit 5G, FertiOne 5G, NetaJet 5G and NetaFlex 5G—combines advanced EC/pH sensing, auto-adaptive injection, and integration with the GrowSphere digital operating system to create a closed-loop, self-learning system. Building on six decades of agronomic expertise, Dosing 5G is designed to help farmers address rising input costs, resource scarcity, and climate volatility by maximizing yields while reducing fertilizer waste, labor, and environmental impact. Masarwa emphasizes that the long-term vision is a connected, data-driven fertigation infrastructure that balances profitability and sustainability, positioning Netafim not just as an equipment provider but as an intelligent irrigation ecosystem partner. Strategic Differentiation Netafim has led precision agriculture for decades. With Dosing 5G, what is materially different this time — is this a product upgrade, or a strategic shift toward AI-driven autonomous fertigation?Dosing 5G represents both a material technological leap and a strategic shift in how Netafim approaches autonomous fertigation. Materially, the system is built on an upgraded architecture: A next-generation controller – GrowSphere MAX – which is an intuitive and simple-to-use controller, designed to speak the grower’s language. The GrowSphere MAX also manages local and remote devices such as pumps, main valves, field valves, and other hydraulic components. A new operating system and digital workspace under GrowSphere. A new EC/pH measurement technology with faster stabilization and improved accuracy. A new auto adaptive fertilizer injection mechanism that continuously adjusts dosing based on real-time feedback. These upgrades change the way the system measures, reacts, and stabilizes nutrient delivery. Strategically, Dosing 5G flagship products mark the transition from programmable fertigation to adaptive self-learning nutrient management. While previous generations executed predefined recipes,  Dosing 5G analyzes system behavior dynamically — hydraulic performance, EC/pH response, crop stage, and environmental conditions — and adjusts in real time with minimal human intervention. AI Credibility & Data Advantage Many ag-tech firms claim AI capabilities. What proprietary data, agronomic models, or field validation give Dosing 5G a defensible advantage over competitors in automated dosing? Dosing 5G intelligence is grounded in proprietary agronomic and hydraulic data, robust crop models, and field-validated performance. At its core,  Dosing 5G’s AI capability is the combination of real-time hydraulic intelligence and continuous operational behavior learning. Dosing 5G does not rely solely on agronomic assumptions. It continuously analyzes how the irrigation and fertigation system is actually performing — pressure behavior, flow stability, injection response time, EC/pH dynamics, and valve activity. This real-time hydraulic data creates a live performance map of the system. This operational learning enables the system to adapt dosing logic dynamically, rather than simply executing pre-programmed recipes. Stabilization becomes faster, drift is reduced, and correction cycles become more precise. The result is a “closed loop” system that not only monitors performance in real time but continuously improves its response accuracy. In addition, using GrowSphere workspace enables farmers with agronomic crop modeling based ondeep agronomic expertise, real climate and soil data, and historical performance and real field feedback. These models run daily to update recommendations based on current conditions, effectively tailoring dosing to each crop’s growth stage and environment. ROI in a Cost-Pressured Market Farmers are facing rising input costs and tightening margins. What measurable return on investment can growers expect from Dosing 5G, and over what time horizon? Dosing 5G delivers ROI in 4 measurable areas: Input cost reduction Precision fertigation enables accurate, stabilized nutrient delivery directly to the root zone. By preventing over- or under-dosing and continuously optimizing application rates, growers can typically reduce fertilizer use to the desired amount. Yield & quality optimization By maintaining stable nutrient availability throughout each growth stage, Dosing 5G supports: Higher yield consistency. Improved crop uniformity. Better market-grade quality. Reduced leaching & losses Minimizing nutrient leaching and runoff means growers are not paying for fertilizer that never reaches the plant. Avoiding groundwater contamination also reduces regulatory exposure and potential compliance costs — an increasingly relevant factor in Europe and North America. Labor & Maintenance Efficiency Automation and remote control reduce manual calibration, monitoring, and troubleshooting. This lowers dependency on skilled labor and decreases system downtime. Sustainability vs. Profitability Dosing 5G promises reduced nutrient leaching and groundwater pollution. How do you quantify the environmental impact — and can sustainability gains translate into direct financial incentives for growers? As mentioned above, reduced nutrient leaching — through more direct fertilizer delivery — provides financial incentives as growers save money on fertilizer costs with lower dosage requirements. And, with reduced groundwater pollution, growers face lower regulatory exposure and compliance costs. Integration with Digital Farming How critical is integration with GrowSphere to the Dosing 5G value proposition? Is this primarily a hardware innovation, or is the long-term play software, data services, and recurring revenue? Integration with the full GrowSphere Operating System is fundamental to the Dosing 5G value proposition — it is not an optional add-on. While Dosing 5G hardware delivers precision injection and stabilization, connecting the hardware to the GrowSphere OS transforms it into a fully integrated irrigation and fertigation ecosystem that connects hydraulic control, agronomic intelligence, operational management, and data analytics in one environment The GrowSphere OS provides: A unified workspace for irrigation and fertigation planning, execution, and validation. Real-time monitoring of soil, crop, climate, and hydraulic performance. Agronomic recommendations through embedded crop models. Alerting, traceability, and season-over-season reporting. Remote access and multi-site farm management. Dosing 5G introduces new controller technology, advanced EC/pH measurement, and injection technology with the GrowSphere OS. Together, this enables: Continuous optimization based on real-time data. Cross-system learning across seasons and sites. Software-enabled service layers. Scalable digital offerings beyond hardware sales. The broader strategy is clearly platform-driven. The operating system allows Netafim to move froman equipment provider to an intelligent irrigation ecosystem partner, where data, software, and agronomic services become increasingly central to long-term value creation. Scalability Across Markets From open fields in emerging markets to high-tech greenhouses in Europe and North America, how adaptable is the Dosing 5G range across vastly different regulatory, climate, and infrastructure conditions? Dosing 5G was intentionally designed as a modular, scalable portfolio. The portfolio structure enables scalability by configuration: FertiOne 5G – A simple, cost-effective single-channel solution for bulk fertigation in open fields, pivots, and orchards. FertiKit 5G – A flexible, multi-channel open-field system (up to 6 channels) that can be tailored to farm size and complexity. NetaJet 5G – High-precision EC/pH stabilization (up to 8 channels), ideal for sensitive crops and short irrigation cycles in soil and soilless greenhouses. NetaFlex 5G – Advanced, highly uniform greenhouse mixing technology (up to 6 channels) for operations requiring very high precision. Scalability is also achieved through configuration and modularity flexibility for each product.  Also in the pipeline is The GrowSphere Flex — a FertiOne 5G soulution with a specifically designed controller tailor-made for small farmers and their real needs. Climate Volatility & Risk Management With unpredictable weather patterns intensifying, how does AI-automated dosing help farmers mitigate risk in real time — and does the system learn differently across crop types and geographies? Dosing 5G, when integrated with the GrowSphere OS and its embedded Crop Advisor capabilities, enables reactions to climate volatility. What’s more, the GrowSphere Crop Advisor leverages advanced crop models built on decades of Netafim agronomic expertise and global field validation. It combines real-time weather data, soil moisture information, hydraulic system performance, and crop growth stage modeling which allow the system to generate daily, crop-specific irrigation, and fertigation recommendations based on actual and forecasted conditions. In periods of climate stress, this translates into: Anticipating heat-driven evapotranspiration spikes and adjusting irrigation and nutrient concentration accordingly. Preventing water stress during irregular irrigation windows. Adjusting irrigation and fertigation strategies based on crop stage sensitivity. Adjusting irrigation during extreme weather events. The Competitive Landscape & Future Vision Where do you see precision fertigation heading over the next five years? Will we move toward fully autonomous nutrient management systems, and how central is Dosing 5G to Orbia Netafim’s broader AI roadmap? In the coming years, the evolution will be driven as much by software as by hardware. The continued development of the GrowSphere Workspace will expand its role from a monitoring and control interface into a comprehensive operational environment. Planning, execution, validation, reporting, and agronomic recommendations will increasingly operate in a unified digital layer. The system will not only execute fertigation strategies but support growers in designing, benchmarking, and continuously improving them. At the same time, innovation will not be limited to large high-tech operations. A major part of Netafim’s future vision is to extend advanced automated fertigation capabilities to small and medium-sized farms. By modularizing system architecture and maintaining configuration flexibility, Dosing 5G can scale in both directions — offering high and low-injection flows and high-precision greenhouse solutions while also delivering accessible, cost-effective configurations for open-field growers. The goal is to democratize intelligent fertigation rather than restrict it to premium segments. From a technical standpoint, future development will focus on increasing injection flow capacities to support larger irrigation blocks and expanding the number of dosing elements that can operate simultaneously. As farms grow in scale and nutrient programs become more sophisticated, systems must handle higher volumes and more complex fertilizer combinations without compromising stabilization speed or accuracy. The long-term vision is clear: a connected, high-capacity, data-driven fertigation infrastructure that continuously balances productivity, cost efficiency, and environmental responsibility across farm sizes and geographies. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3612/ai-enabled-agronomy-can-further-accelerate-impact-to-optimise-irrigation-and-risk-management-dr-mo-segad-2025-world-food-prize-top-agri-food-pioneer.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3612/ai-enabled-agronomy-can-further-accelerate-impact-to-optimise-irrigation-and-risk-management-dr-mo-segad-2025-world-food-prize-top-agri-food-pioneer.html Mon, 02 Mar 2026 13:46:48 +0530 2025 World Food Prize – Top Agri-Food pioneer calls for nature-based, AI-enabled transformation of drylands Dr Mo Segad, a Swedish and American soil scientist and inventor, was officially recognised by the World Food Prize Foundation as one of the 39 recipients in the 2025 Top Agri-Food Pioneers (TAP) cohort. He is a distinguished professor, UNCCD-accredited expert, and globally recognised inventor whose work is redefining climate-smart and resilient desert agriculture. As founder of 3N BioTech, Pure Green AI, and a UN-accredited forestry organisation, and as a distinguished council member of the World Agriculture Forum, Dr Segad integrates AI, soil science, and regenerative practices to deliver scalable, verifiable solutions aligned with COP outcomes, NDCs, UNCCD Land Degradation Neutrality, and FAO food security mandates. In an exclusive interview with AgroSpectrum, Dr Mo Segad highlights how pioneering nano/bio soil technologies and nature-based innovations are transforming arid and degraded lands into productive, climate-resilient farms that boost food security while reducing water use, agrochemicals, and carbon emissions and use of technology such as AI in maintaining soil health. As a 2025 World Food Prize – Top Agri-Food Pioneer, how does your innovative work directly support agricultural and sustainable practices to boost national and global food security? Standing on the World Food Prize stage was a profound honor, yet a clear reminder that awards are not the measure of our work; impact is. My mission is to treat nature with nature so farmers, local communities, and Indigenous peoples can grow more organic food with less water and no agrochemicals, while restoring drylands/soils and reducing carbon emissions. From first-generation, custom-made Liquid Clays to next-generation, custom-formulated 3N BioTech, I have focused on innovative eco-engineering that delivers cost-effective, scalable, nature-based technologies to transform arid and semi-arid lands, combat water scarcity, and tackle soil salinisation in a time of climate crisis. By transforming sandy and degraded soils into living, productive lands, we can increase yields while cutting irrigation and fertiliser use, reverse desertification, and enhance soil carbon. This enables countries to expand climate-resilient organic farming without encroaching on high-biodiversity or high-emissions frontiers.  Recognition such as “Innovator of the Future” further encourages me to continue promoting credible innovation that aligns directly with COP outcomes and national commitments, advancing NDCs (emissions reductions via soil carbon and input efficiency), NAPs (adaptation through drought-resilient agriculture), UNCCD Land Degradation Neutrality, and the SDGs / CGIAR / ICARDA priorities. In short, innovation and science-led soil solutions are not an adjunct to food security; they are its foundation. How can climate-resilient desert agriculture be promoted and scaled further? We must reposition innovative desert agriculture as core adaptation, not a niche. The fastest path to scale is to treat nature with nature by deploying innovative, cost-effective, custom-made, nature-based soil and water technologies with verifiable outcomes. When arid and semi-arid lands become productive without depleting freshwater or aquifers and without expanding emissions, adaptation and food security advance together. To get there, countries should embed desert agriculture in national adaptation plans and food security strategies with clear targets to implement and deploy innovation, so that millions of hectares can be restored, water saved, salinity reduced, and farmer incomes stabilised. After decades of heavy mechanisation and agrochemical intensity, it is time to pivot to innovative, custom-formulated desert Ag solutions paired with outcome-based incentives. AI-enabled agronomy can further accelerate impact i.e. integrating AI with nature-based technologies to optimise irrigation and risk management for both smallholders and large estates. In sum: innovative nature-based AgTech, policy alignment, local production, outcome incentives, AI-enabled advisory, and catalytic finance—this is how we make desert agriculture and drylands a pillar of adaptation at national and continental scale. What is a climate solution that isn’t getting the attention or funding it deserves? Salinity reversal in drylands, along with sand-to-productive-farm transformation, is an underfunded powerhouse. Salinisation silently removes millions of hectares from production. This is why I have invented and developed custom-formulated, nature-based Ag-solutions to enhance soil structure, improve water-holding capacity, and restore biological function, addressing salinity and barren lands at their roots.  Integrated with regenerative practices (no-tillage, ground cover, and salt-tolerant rotations), these solutions rapidly restore farm productivity, save water, reduce agrochemical dependency, and unlock resilient yields—while reversing desertification and increasing soil carbon. Because these benefits cut across adaptation, mitigation, livelihoods, and water security, salinity reversal and sand-to-soil solutions deserve a central place in UNCCD Land Degradation Neutrality portfolios and climate-finance windows. How do you see integrating soil nano / biotechnology and water-retention strategies into national food security programmes while reducing dependency on unsustainable irrigation systems? Adopt and accelerate science-backed innovations and proven emerging technologies that scale what works by setting national performance standards for minimum water savings, salinity reduction, and soil organic carbon gains while keeping technology pathways open to spur innovation. Prioritise arid and semi-arid regions and saline soils, where returns on water and soil interventions are highest, and integrate custom-made nano- and bio-AgTech with drip and sensor-guided irrigation to reduce demand and stabilise yields. Practice aquifer stewardship by linking on-farm water savings to basin-level caps, recharge programmes, and equitable allocation frameworks so that efficiency gains translate into aquifer recovery rather than rebound extraction. This approach embeds high-integrity soil and water outcomes into national food security strategies, reduces dependence on unsustainable irrigation, and builds resilience where it is needed most. At recent COP and FAO forums, fertiliser sustainability has emerged as both a climate and geopolitical issue. How do nano-based and bio-enabled fertiliser systems contribute to reducing emissions, improving efficiency, and strengthening fertiliser security for importing nations? Recently, I was globally recognised by the World Food Prize Foundation for two decades of pioneering work in soil nanotechnology. Treating nature with nature is central to our transition pathway. Nano- and bio-enabled systems deliver nutrients more precisely and rebuild soil function—while reducing costs and risk.  Importantly, nano-fertilisers and nano-formulations synchronise nutrient release with plant demand and root uptake, cutting runoff, leaching, and GHG emissions from over-application. Demand is rising for organic nano-fertilisers compatible with regenerative agriculture, and for bio-enabled inputs (microbial consortia, biostimulants) that offer soil-health co-benefits while reducing embedded emissions from production and long-haul transport. Bottom line: this is more than “greener fertiliser.” It is a resilience strategy that aligns food security, climate targets, farm profitability, and national sovereignty over critical inputs, accelerating the transition to climate-smart, soil-healthy, and supply-secure agriculture.As soil carbon sequestration gains traction in voluntary and compliance markets, what safeguards, measurement standards, and governance are needed to ensure integrity, prevent greenwashing, and protect smallholders—and what financing mechanisms can rapidly scale land restoration and climate-smart agriculture?My approach is simple: innovation, foresight, transparency, and accountability ... or nothing. That’s why we’re launching Pure Green AI: a human-in-the-loop, blockchain-powered foresight, peer-review, and validation platform that predicts environmental risks, verifies soil and ecosystem outcomes, and eliminates greenwashing by anchoring projects to globally recognised standards.  Pure Green AI combines predictive, standardised AI tools with immutable audit trails to guide science-backed interventions across soil carbon, climate-smart farming, mangrove, forestry, and biodiversity projects. With tokenised, results-based finance, we unlock funding only after verified impact, scaling innovative, nature-based solutions with integrity; transforming degraded soils into fertile farmland; accelerating transparent eco-restoration; and building resilient landscapes and smart cities. In short: Blended and green finance should fund scale-up, de-risking early adoption, expanding local production capacity, and financing tree-planting and eco-restoration projects that recharge water cycles and build climate resilience. Pure Green AI is a credible end-to-end operating system and smart oracle for measurable, financeable, and fraud-resistant eco-restoration—where projects, people, and nature thrive together. ---- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3590/is-snap-built-to-overspend-cato-says-yes.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3590/is-snap-built-to-overspend-cato-says-yes.html Fri, 20 Feb 2026 14:59:31 +0530 Why Cato believes reforms from the Republican Study Committee stop short of true fiscal reform The Republican Study Committee has advanced a slate of SNAP reforms—tightening eligibility, eliminating broad-based categorical eligibility, barring noncitizens, strengthening quality controls, and expanding interstate data matching—to curb waste and rein in federal spending. While these measures promise meaningful savings, they largely refine compliance mechanisms without confronting the program’s deeper structural imbalance: states administer benefits that federal taxpayers overwhelmingly finance. This misalignment of authority and fiscal responsibility, critics argue, perpetuates weak incentives to aggressively prevent fraud and control long-term cost growth. A more durable solution would realign funding with governance—through block grants or full devolution—placing accountability squarely with the entities that design and operate the program. In an exclusive interview with AgroSpectrum, Romina Boccia, Director of Budget and Entitlement Policy at the Cato Institute, weighs in on the Republican Study Committee framework proposing tighter SNAP eligibility, elimination of broad-based categorical eligibility, stricter quality controls, and expanded data matching to curb waste. While she acknowledges these reforms could generate significant savings—potentially hundreds of billions over a decade—Romina argues they stop short of addressing SNAP’s core structural flaw: a federal–state financing model that divorces spending authority from fiscal responsibility. The Republican Study Committee argues that tightening eligibility and verification will curb waste in SNAP. From Cato’s perspective, are these reforms meaningful structural fixes—or incremental guardrails around a fundamentally flawed program design?  The GOP’s SNAP reforms are a step in the right direction, but they only treat the symptoms of the problem. Tightening eligibility and verification may reduce improper payments at the margin, but it doesn’t fix SNAP’s core incentive problem. The federal government pays for benefits while states administer the program, meaning states have weak incentives to control costs. Structural reform would align program management with fiscal responsibility, whether through block grants or full devolution.  The RSC estimates that eliminating broad-based categorical eligibility could save $100 billion over 10 years. Do you view BBCE as a loophole that undermines statutory intent, or as a necessary flexibility tool for states managing poverty in high-cost regions?  Broad-based categorical eligibility allows states to bypass SNAP’s statutory income and asset limits, effectively expanding eligibility beyond what Congress intended. Because the federal government finances the benefits, states can broaden access without bearing the fiscal consequences. If states want greater discretion over eligibility, they should also assume greater financial responsibility. A major pillar of the proposal would bar noncitizens from SNAP entirely. Does this approach meaningfully reduce long-term fiscal exposure, or does it risk unintended labor market and integration consequences that could increase state-level burdens?  Limiting noncitizen access to SNAP reduces federal spending. As an added political benefit, it reassures Americans that immigrants are coming to work—not to take advantage of American taxpayers. Building a wall around the welfare state, rather than around the country, can sustain public support for legal immigration that benefits Americans. The framework introduces a zero-tolerance quality control threshold for payment errors. Is stricter auditing the right lever to pull—or does it risk penalizing administrative mistakes while failing to address deeper incentive misalignments?  Eliminating the QC threshold would increase program transparency by providing a more accurate measure of how much federal taxpayer money is lost to improper payments in SNAP and tighten enforcement. But stricter auditing alone doesn’t fix SNAP’s core incentive problem. As long as federal taxpayers finance benefits, states face limited fiscal consequences for errors. Greater accountability will come from aligning program authority with funding responsibilities. You argue that states lack incentive to prevent improper payments because they do not finance SNAP benefits directly. Would converting SNAP into a block grant with state cost-sharing meaningfully reduce fraud—or simply shift fiscal risk during economic downturns?  Block-granting SNAP would give states a stronger incentive to reduce fraud, as they would no longer be able to rely on additional federal funding to finance benefit expansions or make up for improper payments resulting from lax oversight. Every dollar lost to waste would be a dollar unavailable for legitimate beneficiaries.  Under a block grant model, Congress could also allow states to carry over unspent funds and build reserves during economically strong periods—so-called rainy day funds—which they can draw from to help fund benefits during economic downturns, as is the case for the TANF block grant. However, as long as states are spending federal dollars—even with cost-sharing—some incentive distortions remain. Examples include states like California, which have resorted to using budget gimmicks to draw more federal dollars in Medicaid. Ending federal financing of SNAP benefits altogether could save over $400 billion over a decade, according to your analysis. Politically and economically, is that a realistic path forward—or a theoretical benchmark to frame the debate?  The 1996 welfare reforms demonstrated both the political viability and positive outcomes of placing greater responsibility for anti-poverty programs on the states. Full devolution is the next step and builds on that precedent. The Biden administration’s 2021 Thrifty Food Plan reevaluation increased SNAP benefits by more than 20 percent. Should Congress rescind that increase on constitutional or fiscal grounds—or would doing so risk destabilizing food security for low-income households?  Congress should rescind it on both constitutional and fiscal grounds. The Biden administration circumvented congressional spending authority and set a dangerous precedent for future unilateral executive benefit expansions. Rescinding the TFP expansion would also save taxpayers almost $300 billion over the next ten years—more than any of the SNAP-specific reforms proposed by the RSC. If Congress implements tighter eligibility rules without reforming the federal–state financing structure, will fraud and improper payments materially decline—or will states simply find new administrative workarounds within the existing incentive framework?  It might reduce payment errors by catching them more quickly, but states will still have little reason to be proactive in combating fraud because any money wasted doesn’t come out of their own coffers. Moreover, stricter verification protocols risk incentivizing states to hide improper payments to avoid financial sanctions. We saw this in 2015, when the USDA reported that 42 of 53 state SNAP agencies weakened their quality control processes to artificially lower reported payment errors. We still see this today, with states like California abusing discretionary waivers to cover up erroneously awarded benefits paid to able-bodied adults that do not meet the program’s work requirements.  --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3578/india-should-move-toward-productivity-linked-livestock-insurance-but-only-through-phased-data-anchored-evolution-ritesh-chauhan-secretary-of-animal-husbandry-govt-of-himachal-pradesh.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3578/india-should-move-toward-productivity-linked-livestock-insurance-but-only-through-phased-data-anchored-evolution-ritesh-chauhan-secretary-of-animal-husbandry-govt-of-himachal-pradesh.html Mon, 16 Feb 2026 13:14:35 +0530 Why India must move from ad-hoc compensation to a technology-enabled, trust-driven livestock protection framework that stabilises incomes and safeguards productive assets As livestock becomes an increasingly critical pillar of rural incomes amid climate and market uncertainties, the lack of effective risk protection remains a major gap in India’s agricultural policy landscape. In this exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Ritesh Chauhan, Secretary of Animal Husbandry, Government of Himachal Pradesh, explains why advances in digital identification, veterinary networks, cooperatives, and fintech now make a scalable livestock insurance framework both viable and essential. Drawing from Himachal Pradesh’s on-ground experience, he shares practical insights on building trust, improving claim settlement, and strengthening insurer participation. Edited excerpts: Why is this the right moment for India to scale up a National Livestock Insurance Scheme? India’s agricultural economy is undergoing a quiet but consequential shift—and livestock sits at the centre of this transition. As crop agriculture faces yield volatility, land fragmentation, and climate stress, livestock has emerged as the most stable and fastest-growing contributor to agri-GVA. Today, dairying, poultry, and small ruminants together account for nearly one-third of agricultural value added, growing faster than cereals or horticulture. This is not accidental: livestock offers daily cash flow, higher labour absorption, and risk diversification for smallholders in ways that seasonal cropping cannot. Yet this very backbone of rural resilience remains dangerously under-insured. Climate stress is reshaping livestock risk profiles - Heat stress is reducing milk yields, fertility, and animal longevity. Erratic monsoons and droughts are tightening fodder availability, pushing up feed costs and forcing distress sales of animals. Floods and cyclones increasingly wipe out entire herds in coastal and riverine regions. Unlike crops, livestock losses are not confined to one season; they permanently erode household productive assets and future income streams. Disease outbreaks are becoming systemic economic shocks - The spread of Lumpy Skin Disease (LSD) across multiple states since 2022 has exposed how vulnerable India’s livestock economy is to transboundary and climate-linked diseases. For households owning one or two cattle—the majority of India’s livestock keepers—the death or productivity loss of even a single animal can mean the collapse of daily income, nutrition security, and repayment capacity for micro-loans. Yet compensation remains uneven, delayed, and fiscally reactive, varying widely by state and fiscal headroom.   The success of Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) in crops and Ayushman Bharat – Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY), in health shows that large-scale, publicly backed, technology-enabled risk pooling is feasible—even in a country with fragmented landholdings and informal livelihoods.  Digital animal identification, Aadhaar-linked beneficiary databases, mobile veterinary records, satellite fodder mapping, and AI-based disease surveillance are finally converging. This makes it possible to design livestock protection systems that are actuarially sound, fraud-resistant, and low-touch for farmers. Waiting longer only raises fiscal exposure, as climate and disease risks compound. Moving now enables a paradigm shift—from relief to resilience - Without structured livestock risk protection, governments will continue to rely on ad-hoc compensation after disasters and outbreaks—often delayed, politically negotiated, and fiscally inefficient. A national or federated livestock insurance and protection framework would instead stabilise rural incomes, protect productive assets, and crowd in private insurers, agri-fintech and veterinary networks. At this inflection point, livestock is no longer a peripheral subsector—it is core economic infrastructure. If India is serious about building climate-resilient agriculture and doubling real farm incomes, integrating livestock into its formal risk-management architecture is not optional. It is the logical next step in the evolution of India’s welfare and productivity state. How can a formal insurance architecture strengthen rural financial resilience? In the absence of formal risk protection, livestock-owning households fall back on informal coping mechanisms—moneylenders, distress sale of animals, or emergency borrowing through SHGs. These options are slow, costly, and often value-destructive. High interest rates, delayed access to funds, and forced liquidation of productive animals turn a temporary shock into a long-term income loss. Once an animal is sold or dies without compensation, rebuilding the herd can take years, pushing families deeper into debt and vulnerability. Formal livestock insurance fundamentally alters this equation. By protecting the household balance sheet, it enables faster replacement of lost animals and prevents irreversible erosion of productive assets. Timely payouts ensure continuity of milk production, which for millions of families functions as daily cashflow—covering food, school expenses, and loan repayments. This income stability is critical in cushioning households against climate and disease shocks. Equally important, insured livestock becomes bankable collateral. When animals are formally insured and tagged, banks and MFIs are more willing to extend working capital and productivity loans, crowding in institutional credit and reducing dependence on informal lenders. In this way, livestock insurance is not merely a safety net—it is an enabler of rural financial inclusion, resilience, and growth. Which success elements should be adapted for livestock? Three design elements from India’s existing risk-protection programmes are clearly transferable to livestock—provided they are adapted to biological and market realities rather than copied mechanically. First, cluster-based tendering enables better risk pooling and pricing. Instead of fragmented, district-by-district coverage, clustering animals by agro-climatic zones, disease risk profiles, and production systems allows insurers to diversify exposure and price risk more accurately. Larger, well-defined pools reduce adverse selection, lower premiums, and make participation commercially viable for insurers while keeping subsidies fiscally efficient for governments. Second, a unified national digital platform is essential. A single backbone integrating animal identification, owner KYC, enrolment, premium subsidy flow, veterinary records, and claims processing can dramatically reduce friction and fraud. Mobile-based reporting, geo-tagged mortality verification, and integration with state animal husbandry databases would enable faster, more transparent settlements—critical for households dependent on daily milk income. Third, enforceable service-level agreements create trust and accountability. Clear timelines for enrolment, disease reporting, claim verification, and payout—backed by penalties for non-performance—are non-negotiable. Without strong SLAs, insurance degenerates into delayed relief. With them, livestock protection becomes a predictable, farmer-centric instrument. Together, these elements form a scalable blueprint—one that respects livestock’s unique risks while leveraging India’s hard-won institutional learning. How ready is India for RFID, biometrics, or muzzle‑printing? India is no longer starting from scratch on livestock identification. Ear-tagging and RFID are already deployed at scale under national and state programmes, while pilots on advanced biometrics—such as muzzle-printing and image-based identification—are steadily improving accuracy and field viability. The immediate priority is not inventing new technology, but establishing a tamper-resistant, unique animal ID that can serve as the backbone of the livestock ecosystem. This ID must be seamlessly integrated with AgriStack, the National Digital Livestock Mission (NDLM), vaccination and disease surveillance databases, and formal credit systems. When an animal’s identity, health history, ownership, and insurance status sit on a common digital rail, risk assessment, claims verification, and credit underwriting become faster, cheaper, and more credible. Equally critical is the human interface. Para-veterinarians, cooperative staff, and extension workers are the system’s frontline. They need simple, offline-capable, field-friendly tools to record vaccinations, disease events, mortality, and distress sales—triggering claims or alerts in real time without paperwork or discretion. In this context, technology is an enabler, not the solution. The real challenge is ecosystem design: aligning incentives across farmers, vets, insurers, banks, and states so that data capture is trusted, participation is rewarded, and protection becomes automatic rather than exceptional. How can digital workflows transform credibility? Rebuilding trust in livestock protection hinges less on promises and more on verifiable system behaviour. Four operational levers are critical. First, geo-tagged, time-stamped enrolment and event capture. Photographic proof at enrolment—linked to animal ID, owner KYC, and location—creates a clear baseline and sharply reduces disputes. Similar capture at vaccination, illness, or mortality ensures objective evidence from the field, not post-fact claims. Second, rule-based and transparent claim algorithms. Claims must be processed through clearly defined, publicly disclosed logic—triggered by verified events, disease status, and coverage rules. Removing discretion shortens settlement cycles and eliminates perceptions of bias or arbitrariness. Third, visible and time-bound processing stages. Every step—intimation, verification, approval, and payout—should be trackable by farmers through SMS or WhatsApp in local languages, with automatic escalation if timelines are breached. Visibility is as important as speed. Fourth, independent audits and public dashboards. Regular third-party audits and anonymised dashboards showing claim ratios, settlement times, and district-level performance create accountability for insurers and implementing agencies alike. When farmers’ lived experience consistently matches system timelines, trust shifts from rhetoric to reality—and participation follows. What innovations can serve as national templates? Himachal Pradesh offers a practical, ground-tested template for how livestock risk protection can be operationalised at scale. The state’s cooperative-led outreach model, anchored in milk unions and village-level institutions, allows insurance and animal health services to piggyback on trusted, everyday touchpoints rather than stand-alone enrolment drives. This significantly lowers awareness gaps and improves uptake. Equally important is Himachal’s dense para-veterinary and extension network, which functions as the first responder for disease reporting, vaccinations, and mortality verification. When para-vets are digitally enabled and institutionally aligned, claims move faster and data quality improves—reducing both farmer frustration and insurer leakage. The state’s ongoing digitalisation of animal health records, breeding, and service delivery creates continuity across the animal lifecycle, enabling risk assessment and policy servicing without repetitive paperwork. This integrated data flow is critical for actuarial credibility and faster settlements. Two financing innovations stand out. Bundling insurance with milk procurement channels sharply reduces customer acquisition costs and premium collection friction, as deductions can be seamlessly aligned with milk payments. Additionally, the use of Milk Cess as a co-funding mechanism for premiums demonstrates how sectoral levies can be recycled to de-risk producers themselves. Together, these elements show how institutional design—not subsidies alone—can make livestock insurance viable, trusted, and scalable. Should India introduce productivity‑linked insurance? India should move toward productivity-linked livestock insurance—but only through a phased, data-anchored evolution, not a leap. Mortality coverage must remain the foundation. It addresses the most catastrophic risk, is easiest to verify, and builds early trust among farmers, insurers, and states. Without a robust mortality layer, more complex covers will lack credibility and fiscal discipline. That said, productivity losses are economically larger and more frequent than deaths. Heat stress–induced milk yield dips, infertility, disease-related work-loss, and prolonged recovery periods quietly erode household incomes, often without triggering any formal support. Ignoring these losses limits the real stabilisation potential of livestock insurance. The constraint is not concept, but measurement. Productivity-linked insurance requires reliable baseline data at the animal or herd level, regular digital milk recording, and credible attribution mechanisms to distinguish normal variability from insurable shocks. Parametric or index-based triggers—such as temperature-humidity indices, disease outbreak thresholds, or verified yield deviation bands—offer a practical pathway, but only once data density improves. India should therefore evolve stepwise: begin with universal mortality cover, pilot productivity-linked add-ons in organised milk sheds and cooperatives, refine triggers and payout logic, and scale gradually. Done right, this progression can transform livestock insurance from a safety net into a true income-stabilisation instrument. What would a unified livestock digital ecosystem look like? By 2030, India’s livestock sector should be anchored in a unified digital ecosystem built around a single, tamper-resistant animal ID linked to a verified farmer ID. This core identity layer would serve as the common reference point across institutions, eliminating today’s silos between animal husbandry, insurance, banking, and markets. On this foundation would sit multiple interoperable layers. The health and disease layer would record vaccinations, treatments, outbreak exposure, and biosecurity status in real time through para-vets and veterinary networks. The insurance and risk layer would track coverage, claims history, and risk scores, enabling faster payouts and actuarially sound pricing. A breeding and productivity layer would capture genetics, fertility, lactation cycles, and yield trends—starting with organised milk sheds and expanding over time. Above this, a financial services layer would allow banks and MFIs to treat insured, traceable livestock as bankable assets—unlocking credit, working capital, and embedded insurance. Finally, an advisory and market access layer would deliver personalised alerts on nutrition, heat stress, disease risk, and price signals, while linking farmers seamlessly to milk procurement, input suppliers, and buyers. For the farmer, this complexity must be invisible. The system should feel like one trusted interface—one that protects assets, stabilises income, rewards good practices, and connects livestock keepers to markets and finance with dignity and predictability. ---- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3577/can-seafood-industry-police-itself-fao-weighs-in.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3577/can-seafood-industry-police-itself-fao-weighs-in.html Fri, 13 Feb 2026 16:39:03 +0530 Esther Garrido of FAO urges processors, retailers and foodservice operators to integrate authenticity testing and supplier verification into core business risk management In an exclusive interview with AgroSpectrum, Esther Garrido, Fisheries Officer at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, explains why establishing a reliable global baseline for fish fraud remains elusive due to fragmented data, inconsistent methodologies and systemic underreporting. She highlights that strong economic incentives, coupled with weak enforcement, continue to drive species substitution, mislabelling and other deceptive practices that threaten consumer trust, public health and marine sustainability. Esther underscores that fraud detection must be integrated into routine food safety and fisheries governance systems, supported by harmonised traceability standards and smarter use of analytical technologies. She stresses that meaningful progress will require coordinated international action, stronger regulatory frameworks, private sector accountability and sustained capacity building to protect biodiversity, food security and market integrity. Scope and Scale : Why is it so hard to establish a reliable global baseline for fish fraud, and what would it take to produce one? Despite frequent references to figures, the fisheries and aquaculture sector lacks a reliable global baseline because data are fragmented, methods are inconsistent, and fraud is systematically underreported. Different studies use different definitions of fraud, sampling strategies, and analytical tools, making results difficult to compare across regions or species. Institutionally, establishing a baseline it would require coordinated reporting mechanisms, stronger data sharing between countries, and clear mandates for competent authorities to monitor fraud systematically, not just incidentally. FAO’s report makes clear that without global coordination, estimates will remain indicative rather than definitive. Economic Incentives vs. Enforcement : How important are economic incentives compared to weak enforcement in driving fish fraud? Economic incentives are the primary driver of fish fraud, but weak enforcement determines whether it is worth taking the risk. Large price differentials between species that look similar, between fish production methods (wild vs. farmed), or between origins create strong motivation for species substitution, misbranding, or mislabelling. In regions with limited inspection capacity or weak regulatory frameworks or weak penalties, the economic reward far outweighs the risk. FAO emphasizes that fraud is not simply a market issue; it is a governance issue, where incentives and enforcement failures reinforce each other. Consumer and Public Health Risk: Which forms of fish fraud pose the greatest risks to human health, and are current frameworks sufficient? All forms of fraud can have food safety implications. The risks have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. I can think about high-risk situations when fraud leads to species substitution involving toxic species, undeclared allergens, or the addition of adulterants that can harm consumers, but there might be other circumstances that may imply the same level of risk. While food safety systems are generally designed to detect unintentional food safety issues, they are less well equipped to detect deliberate deception. FAO highlights that food fraud often falls between food safety, quality control, and fisheries management mandates. Without integrating fraud detection into routine controls, health risks linked to intentional misrepresentation can remain invisible. Biodiversity and Sustainability Impact: How does fish fraud undermine fisheries management and sustainability claims? Fish fraud can undermine fisheries management by distorting catch data and masking overfishing. When species or origins are misreported, managers lose the ability to accurately track exploitation levels or enforce conservation measures. This can threaten biodiversity and also food security in the long-term, a key concern for FAO. Technology and Accessibility Gap: How can regulators bridge the gap between advanced detection tools and real-world accessibility? Analytical tools such as DNA barcoding or isotope analysis are useful, but FAO stresses that technology alone is not enough. Bridging the gap requires tiered monitoring systems, where low-cost screening tools are used routinely and analytical methods are reserved for targeted investigations. Traceability and Labelling Standards: What prevents global alignment on seafood traceability and labelling standards? Traceability requirements and labelling standards for food have been developed by the Codex Alimentarius, and they provide clear information and are a benchmark for food safety, but the aquatic sector presents unique challenges due to the complexity of the sector and increasing international trade of fisheries and aquaculture products. Logistically, small-scale fisheries and complex trans-shipment chains pose challenges. FAO’s report highlights that while scientific naming and traceability are widely recognized as essential, global alignment requires political will, regulatory coherence, and support mechanisms to ensure smaller actors are not excluded. Role of the Private Sector: What responsibilities should the private sector assume, and how can proactive compliance be encouraged? Processors of aquatic products, retailers, and foodservice companies play a central role, as they often control the technical specifications of the products they buy and select their suppliers. Businesses should implement due diligence, supplier verification, traceability systems, and routine authenticity testing as part of normal operations. Fraud prevention works best when it is integrated into business risk management, not treated as an external enforcement issue. Path Forward: What combination of actions is most likely to reduce fish fraud over the next decade? No single solution will suffice. The most effective path forward combines robust regulatory frameworks, stronger enforcement, international cooperation and data sharing, risk-based use of analytical technologies, harmonized labelling and traceability requirements also for aquatic products, capacity building in developing regions, and greater consumer awareness and transparency. This is the way forward. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3575/cocoas-130-billion-reckoning.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3575/cocoas-130-billion-reckoning.html Wed, 11 Feb 2026 12:50:42 +0530 Rising regulation, climate stress and labour risk are forcing the global chocolate industry to confront structural weaknesses embedded deep in West Africa’s smallholder supply chains Roughly 70 per cent of the world’s cocoa is produced in Africa, primarily in West Africa, anchoring a global chocolate industry that depends heavily on a single, climate-exposed region. Yet cocoa supply chains face persistent and deeply rooted risks, including child and forced labour, chronic farmer poverty, land degradation, deforestation and escalating climate stress. Production is dominated by smallholder farmers, most cultivating less than five hectares, operating within fragmented systems where informal intermediaries limit visibility and traceability. At the same time, new regulatory frameworks such as the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) are significantly increasing corporate due-diligence obligations, pushing companies to scrutinize sourcing practices at an unprecedented level of detail. For a sector historically built on opacity, the compliance bar is rising fast. What the Data Reveals: Scale Without Stability Data from Sedex, one of the world’s largest ethical trade platforms, illustrates both expanding engagement and persistent vulnerability. Over the past decade, cocoa sites registered on Sedex have increased by 200 per cent, now representing approximately 280,000 workers globally. Since 2020, the number of audits conducted annually across cocoa sites has risen by 174 per cent, reflecting intensifying oversight. Yet the average combined risk score across cocoa sites stands at a medium 5 out of 10—a figure that masks significant structural fragilities. Growth in monitoring has not yet translated into proportional risk reduction. Labour and Water: The Highest-Risk Indicators Globally, working hours and water management emerge as the highest-risk indicators across cocoa operations. These findings point simultaneously to economic strain within labour systems and environmental pressure in producing regions. Africa’s average combined risk score is 20.5 per cent higher than the global average, placing it firmly in the high-risk category. Other regions record an overall medium risk level but still exhibit critical weaknesses at the indicator level. Across both Africa and Asia, the most significant social risks relate to wages, working hours and health and safety. Asia records the highest working-hours risk, scoring 7.8 per cent higher than Africa across cocoa sites, underscoring how labour intensity and enforcement gaps vary regionally. Audit Findings: Compliance Gaps Persist Audit data reinforces the systemic nature of these challenges. Seventy-seven percent of non-compliances identified at cocoa sites relate to wages, working hours and health and safety. More concerning, 58 per cent of critical and business-critical non-compliances are linked specifically to health and safety failures, highlighting weaknesses in protective systems and operational safeguards. Risk exposure is not confined to origin countries. In the past 12 months, China and the United States together accounted for 21.4 per cent of global cocoa non-compliances, split evenly between them, followed by Turkey and Mexico. Compliance vulnerabilities therefore extend across processing and downstream markets. Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana: The Epicentre of Supply and Vulnerability Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana together supply roughly 60 per cent of global cocoa, placing them at the centre of both opportunity and systemic risk. Farmers in both countries commonly earn below the poverty line and face mounting pressures including child labour concerns, swollen shoot disease, illegal mining encroachment and recurring climate shocks such as El Niño-driven droughts. Both countries exhibit high inherent risk in regular employment conditions, wages and health and safety. However, their working-hours risk profiles diverge sharply. Côte d’Ivoire registers extreme high risk, while Ghana’s working-hours risk is 36 per cent lower, placing it in the medium range. These differences suggest that national governance frameworks and enforcement mechanisms can materially influence risk outcomes. Environmental Compliance: Documentation vs. Intent Environmental issues rank as the fourth most common category of non-compliance at cocoa sites. Eleven percent of non-compliances relate to water use and waste management, most frequently due to insufficient wastewater permits. A further 7 per cent concern reforestation, conservation and biodiversity, with the most common issue being a lack of awareness regarding local biodiversity regulations. In many cases, environmental gaps stem less from deliberate environmental harm and more from weak management systems, inadequate documentation and incomplete understanding of regulatory obligations. The compliance challenge is therefore as much administrative as ecological. Faster Self-Assessment, Persistent Blind Spots Self-assessment data suggests growing digital maturity. In 2025, more than 60 per cent of cocoa sites completed their Self-Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ) in under one day, indicating faster risk identification processes. Most sites report having a designated individual responsible for environmental management. However, a disconnect remains. Many sites are unaware of specific environmental requirements set by their buyers, creating compliance gaps despite internal accountability structures. Additionally, 15 per cent of sites report either negative impacts on indigenous or local communities or an inability to confirm impacts due to a lack of formal assessment, pointing to persistent weaknesses in community-level due diligence. Traceability: The Structural Weak Link Traceability remains the sector’s most consequential vulnerability. In 2023, only 22 per cent of indirect cocoa supply was traceable to farm level. With an estimated 5 to 6 million farmers and up to 50 million people globally dependent on cocoa, limited traceability significantly increases exposure to regulatory breaches, reputational risk and climate- or disease-related supply disruptions. As global regulations tighten, fragmented supply chains without farm-level transparency will face increasing commercial and legal pressure. The Strategic Inflection Point The cocoa sector is clearly in transition. Oversight is expanding, audits are increasing and digital tools are accelerating risk detection. Yet the structural pressures of poverty, labour strain, environmental stress and limited traceability remain deeply embedded. For an industry worth an estimated $130 billion annually, the next decade will not be defined solely by yield improvements or price volatility. It will be defined by whether cocoa’s supply chains can evolve into transparent, resilient systems capable of withstanding regulatory scrutiny and climate uncertainty. The future of chocolate may ultimately depend less on flavour innovation—and more on governance. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3574/from-domestic-strength-to-global-influence-brazils-bioinput-playbook.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3574/from-domestic-strength-to-global-influence-brazils-bioinput-playbook.html Wed, 11 Feb 2026 12:12:41 +0530 Mauro Heringer tells Agrospectrum how regulatory coordination, tropical biotech and sovereign innovation are positioning Brazil at the center of regenerative agriculture In an exclusive interview with Agrospectrum, Mauro Heringer, Director of International Relations at ABINBIO and Member of the National Bioinputs Export Committee (ApexBrasil), outlined how Brazil’s dominance in tropical bioinputs is reshaping global agricultural markets. He emphasized that Brazil’s competitive edge lies in its “Proof of Tropical Resilience,” with biological solutions tested across six biomes under extreme climatic and pest pressures—conditions that validate their robustness for global deployment. Heringer highlighted regulatory harmonization, living logistics, and institutional coordination under Law 15,070/2024 as central to accelerating exports while positioning Brazil as a benchmark for sustainable agricultural biotechnology. Framing bioinputs as a matter of national security and technological sovereignty, he asserted that Brazil’s ambition extends beyond exports to leading a global transition toward high-performance regenerative agriculture. From Domestic Success to Export Strategy Brazil has built a large and sophisticated domestic bio-inputs market. What specific capabilities or lessons from domestic adoption give Brazilian companies a competitive edge when entering highly regulated international markets? Brazil’s success in the bioinputs sector is not merely a function of sales volume—it reflects deep biotechnological and institutional maturity that has given rise to a true “tropical innovation ecosystem.” The country’s competitive advantage rests on what can be called the Proof of Tropical Resilience. Unlike competitors operating in temperate climates, Brazilian companies develop bioinputs for an environment defined by six distinct biomes within a single territory, continuous year-round cultivation cycles, intense pest pressure and high temperatures. These are among the most challenging agricultural conditions in the world—and Brazil has learned to innovate within them. This is where the real advantage lies: the tropicalization of biotechnology. Brazil does not simply “sell the bottle.” It exports the expertise required to replace or complement synthetic chemistry in highly productive agricultural systems under extreme biological stress. As a result, Brazilian companies are not commodity suppliers. They are holders of strategic intellectual property essential to advancing sustainable global food security. The lesson is straightforward: if a biological solution performs consistently across Brazilian biomes—particularly in the Cerrado—it possesses more than enough robustness for virtually any other agricultural region in the world. Brazil exports resilience, not just microorganisms. Regulatory Asymmetry Across Markets How does the export committee plan to navigate starkly different regulatory regimes for biological inputs in the EU, the United States, and Latin America, and where do you see the greatest bottlenecks to market access? I will start from the end of the question. In my view, the biggest bottlenecks are regulatory alignment and what I call “Living Logistics.” Exporting chemicals is relatively straightforward. Exporting living organisms—bacteria and fungi—is fundamentally different. It requires cold-chain infrastructure, precision logistics and strict control over viability and shelf-life throughout transit. Maintaining biological stability over long international distances remains the most significant technical and commercial challenge. On the regulatory front, asymmetries between countries create additional complexity. Rules, compliance standards and legal frameworks vary widely, making harmonization a strategic priority. To address this, a formal partnership was established in mid-2025 between ApexBrasil and CropLife Brasil, which recently welcomed ABINBIO (Brazilian Association of Bioinput Industries). Together, they formed the National Bioinputs Export Committee, a platform designed to coordinate international expansion and regulatory strategy. Navigating global markets requires differentiated approaches, as regulatory cultures are not uniform. In the European Union, the framework is guided by the Precautionary Principle, which emphasizes intrinsic hazard. There, our strategy is centered almost entirely on demonstrating toxicological safety, purity and the absence of contaminants. We do not sell “productivity” to Europe—we sell food safety and the elimination of chemical residues. The positioning should resemble an “Intel Inside” for agriculture: if it carries Brazilian bio-technology, it represents sustainability and safety. In the United States, the regulatory philosophy—led by the EPA—is pragmatic and risk-based. The focus must therefore be on agronomic efficacy. Our dossiers emphasize large-scale performance data generated across millions of Brazilian hectares under tropical conditions. This industrial-scale validation offers something that controlled laboratory trials alone cannot replicate. In Latin America, the priority should be regional harmonization. Here, the challenge is largely political and institutional. Alignment within Mercosur is essential, with Brazil’s regulatory approval—already subject to rigorous scrutiny by MAPA, ANVISA and IBAMA, under one of the world’s most advanced bioinput frameworks—serving as a regional quality benchmark. The objective is mutual recognition: if a product has been approved by the tropical leader, Brazil, it should qualify for fast-track registration in neighboring markets such as Paraguay, Colombia and Bolivia. In short, the pathway to global expansion requires regulatory intelligence, logistical innovation and geopolitical coordination—not just technological excellence. Branding “Brazil” in Sustainability-Driven Markets The project emphasizes brand positioning around sustainability and bioeconomy. How do you reconcile Brazil’s leadership in bio-inputs with ongoing international scrutiny of its broader environmental record, particularly in land use and deforestation? This is a fundamental question. First, it is important to adjust the premise of the question with data. Often, the narrative imposed on the sustainability issue is a distorted and uninformed view. Brazil is an agro-environmental powerhouse: we preserve more than 60 per cent of our territory with native vegetation and possess the most rigorous environmental legislation in the world (the Forest Code) and, now, modern Bioinput legislation. No other major food producer delivers these numbers.Our leadership in Bioinputs is not an attempt to "compensate" for a problem, but rather the natural evolution of this preservationist mindset. Thanks to our tropical biotechnology (such as Biological Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium Fixation and no-till farming), we have managed to increase production by 400 per cent in recent decades while expanding the land area by only 40 per cent.Therefore, Brazil needs to be emulated. By exporting bioinputs, we are offering the world the same technology that allows us to be the only country feeding 1 billion people while preserving the majority of its forests. Innovation vs. Standardization Tension Biological inputs often require localized formulations and application protocols. How does Brazil balance the need for market-specific adaptation with the efficiencies required for scalable global exports? We solve this dilemma through a "Platform Biology" strategy. The common mistake is thinking that one exports a "ready-to-use final product" just like a chemical pesticide. Brazil has learned to export the Base Technology and Application Know-How.In Industry Standardization (Upstream): Brazil has achieved global excellence in industrial development. Our factories produce spores and metabolites with very high concentration and purity and extended shelf-life. This is standardizable and scalable worldwide. It is the biological "hardware."In Field Adaptation (Downstream): The "software" (how to use it) is adaptable. Our companies don’t just sell the jug; they sell the agronomic protocol. We have formulation technology that allows the same tested robust strain to be activated or applied differently depending on Indian or American soil. Thus, efficiency comes from the industrial scale of our fermentation; adaptation comes from the robustness of our tropical strains. If a bacterium survives the stress of Brazilian soil, it performs easily in less hostile environments.Brazil does not export a "medicine," but rather a "treatment system." By separating the biological asset (standardized) from the application intelligence (localized), companies achieve the benefits of mass production without the risk of inefficacy in foreign soils. Domestic Ownership as Strategic Advantage With over 80 per cent of bio-input companies being Brazilian-owned, how does domestic ownership shape innovation, capital formation, and long-term export competitiveness compared to multinational-dominated ag-input sectors? The fact that Brazil’s bioinput sector is predominantly national in capital structure—historically over 80 per cent —is a positive anomaly within Brazilian agribusiness, which has traditionally been dependent on multinational chemical and seed companies. This domestic foundation has fostered a form of biotechnological sovereignty that significantly reshapes Brazil’s export competitiveness. However, intellectual honesty requires a distinction between the sector’s historical structure and its current market dynamics. The premise that the sector remains mostly national is still statistically defensible when measured by number of companies. Brazil has hundreds of registered bioinput firms—many of them small and medium-sized regional agritechs. If one counts by tax ID (CNPJ), the majority are indeed Brazilian-owned. But when the metric shifts from number of companies to revenue concentration and market share, the picture is evolving rapidly. Multinational giants such as Bayer, Syngenta, Corteva and UPL—as well as foreign investment groups—have accelerated acquisitions of leading Brazilian bioinput firms. Once a Brazilian company is acquired, it continues operating locally, but capital allocation decisions and long-term strategic direction shift to a global headquarters. Why is this happening? Because the Brazilian bioinput sector has become one of the most profitable and dynamic segments in agribusiness, turning it into a primary target for mergers and acquisitions. Many companies that began with 100 per cent national capital were acquired precisely because multinationals struggled to replicate the speed of Brazilian innovation or navigate Brazil’s complex regulatory and agronomic landscape as effectively as local players. This creates a strategic paradox. Brazil risks becoming an exceptional “nursery of biological startups”—a global laboratory for innovation—whose most successful companies are absorbed by foreign capital once they achieve maturity and export scale. At the same time, the very factors that attract multinational interest explain Brazil’s competitive edge. In global chemical conglomerates, biological products are often treated as complementary or defensive tools—designed to protect or extend the lifecycle of synthetic molecules. In contrast, for national Brazilian companies, bioinputs are not an add-on; they are the core business. That structural difference matters. When biology is the central strategy, 100 per cent of R&D investment is directed toward biological performance. There is no internal conflict of interest, such as the risk of cannibalizing sales of high-margin synthetic fungicides. In large chemical corporations, a disruptive biological innovation can threaten existing revenue streams. In Brazilian bioinput companies, disruption is the objective. The result is faster innovation cycles, greater technological boldness and a development pipeline focused purely on biological efficiency under tropical conditions. This strategic clarity—biology as mission, not supplement—is what transformed Brazil into a global reference in bioinputs. The challenge now is ensuring that this innovative sovereignty is not diluted as consolidation accelerates. Competition with Established Multinationals As global agrochemical and biotech firms rapidly expand their biological portfolios, where does Brazil see its most defensible competitive moat—cost, performance in tropical systems, speed of innovation, or something else? Our defensive moat is, without a doubt, Proven Performance in Tropical Systems. While multinationals compete by buying startups to build a portfolio, Brazil has an advantage that cannot be bought: decades of natural selection in the field.The 'Tropicalization' Factor: Biology is context-dependent. A fungus developed in a laboratory in Europe might die in two hours under the sun in Mato Grosso (or Maharashtra). Our strains were isolated and selected under extreme thermal and water stress. They are "elite athletes" of survival.Real Scale vs. Greenhouse: Multinationals test in controlled greenhouses. Brazil tests on 40 million hectares of commercial crops. We have the world’s largest database on how bioinputs interact with the real environment.Cost-Benefit: Since we master large-scale fermentation (on-farm and industrial), we can deliver this elite biology at a cost that makes its use viable in commodities (soybeans, corn, cotton, sugarcane, etc.), not just in expensive fruits.Application Science and Coexistence (Compatibility): Foreign multinationals usually sell the "bottle." Brazilian companies sell the management. Brazil has learned to mix biologicals with chemicals in the same spray tank without inactivating the microorganism. This knowledge regarding formulation stability and chemical compatibility is what global producers want most today to reduce costs.The Brazilian "Pipeline": Brazil possesses the greatest microbial biodiversity in the world. The ability to isolate, test, and register new assets with agility creates an innovation cycle that multinationals, with their global bureaucratic structures, struggle to match. Institutional Coordination and Governance What concrete mechanisms will ensure that the export committee translates coordination into measurable outcomes—such as export growth or regulatory approvals—rather than remaining a symbolic platform? The Committee began its work at the end of 2025. To ensure the export committee does not become a "symbolic platform" without practical delivery, the governance of the bioinput sector in Brazil is being structured on technical execution mechanisms and commercial diplomacy.Law No. 15,070/2024 provides the legal basis, but the translation into measurable results depends on three pillars of institutional coordination. The committee does not act only in commercial promotion, but in the convergence of standards. The concrete mechanism is the creation of joint working groups with bodies such as EFSA (Europe) and the EPA (USA), aiming to reduce registration time abroad through the acceptance of data generated in Brazil (mutual recognition).The committee utilizes the rigor of the new legal framework to advocate that biological efficacy dossiers approved by MAPA (Ministry of Agriculture) be accepted as technical proof in other countries, eliminating the need to repeat field tests that last years.Institutional coordination involves ApexBrasil, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, and Supply in a market segmentation program. Examples such as the creation of an export "Bio-Pipeline" can be cited. The committee identifies biotechnological bottlenecks in partner countries and can directly connect Brazilian companies that have the specific solution through diplomatic missions, trade fairs, events, and through agricultural attachés at Brazilian embassies in key countries.Another aspect to prevent Brazilian products from being blocked by subjective sustainability issues is the implementation of Certification and Traceability Support within a Bioinput Conformity Seal system. Audits will ensure that the exported input meets bioeconomy and low carbon emission requirements, integrating them into the national bioinput program. Long-Term Market Transformation Do you view Brazil’s push into biological inputs primarily as an export opportunity, or as part of a broader effort to reshape global crop protection and fertility markets away from synthetic inputs—and how does that ambition influence policy and investment priorities? This is the question that defines the "endgame" for Brazil. The strategic answer is that export is merely the vehicle, but the global paradigm shift is the destination. Brazil doesn’t just want to be the largest exporter of bioinputs; it intends to be the architect of the new era of world agriculture.This is, undoubtedly, a global paradigm shift. Export is just the economic consequence; the cause is the survival necessity of modern agriculture. Brazil doesn’t just want to sell a substitute for chemicals; we want to lead the transition to the Era of High-Performance Regenerative Agriculture.We are positioning ourselves to be the "Saudi Arabia of Green Chemistry." Just as the Middle East was indispensable in the oil era, Brazil will be indispensable in the bioeconomy era. We are not just "moving away" from synthetics; we are integrating biological tools to create a smarter and more resilient system.This vision changes everything. Our investment priorities have shifted from the logic of "technology importation" to "technological sovereignty." The National Bioinput Plan and the APEX Brasil Bioinput Export Committee Project are proof that the Brazilian State has decided that biotechnology is strategic for national and global security.The Brazilian offensive aims to reposition synthetic inputs (especially fossil-based nitrogen fertilizers and high-toxicity pesticides) as high-risk assets with high environmental costs. The vulnerability revealed by global crises (such as the fertilizer shortage in 2022) accelerated the National Fertilizer Plan and the Bioinput Legal Framework (Law 15,070/2024). Brazil treats bioinputs as a matter of national security. The ambition is to reduce external dependence on mineral fertilizers by up to 50 per cent in the coming decades.By proving this is possible on a continental scale, Brazil creates a "demonstration effect" for the rest of the world, leading a movement for biotechnological food sovereignty. We are redesigning the architecture of food production. The future is biological, and Brazil is the laboratory where this future has already begun.I invite India to join us on this journey. Together, as leaders of the Global South, we have the responsibility and the capacity to define how the world will feed itself over the next 50 years: with more biology, more biotechnology, and more respect for our tropical soils and the people who are here and their future generations. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3573/gross-wen-technologies-martin-gross-on-algae-based-wastewater-as-next-frontier-of-resilient-infrastructure.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3573/gross-wen-technologies-martin-gross-on-algae-based-wastewater-as-next-frontier-of-resilient-infrastructure.html Tue, 10 Feb 2026 11:48:51 +0530 In an exclusive with AgroSpectrum, the Founder & CEO explains how Global Cleantech 100 recognition validates economic durability, circular value creation, and the future of wastewater as a strategic asset AgroSpectrum spoke with Martin Gross, Founder & CEO of Gross-Wen Technologies, following the company’s inclusion in the 2026 Global Cleantech 100. He highlighted how the recognition validates algae-based wastewater treatment as a mature, infrastructure-ready solution for both municipal and industrial users, delivering regulatory compliance alongside energy savings and usable biomass. Gross emphasized Gross-Wen’s focus on economic durability—reducing operating costs, emissions, and chemical dependence while enabling circular value creation through nutrient and carbon recovery. Looking ahead, he positioned wastewater as a strategic asset, with Gross-Wen helping cities and industries build resilient, low-carbon water infrastructure amid tightening capital and climate constraints. Recognition & Strategic Validation Gross-Wen Technologies has been named to the 2026 Global Cleantech 100 at a time when the market is becoming more disciplined and competitive. What does this recognition signal to you about the maturity of algae-based wastewater treatment and its role in the future of critical infrastructure? Being named to the 2026 Global Cleantech 100 signals that algae-based wastewater treatment has reached infrastructure maturity across both municipal and industrial applications. For cities and food and beverage manufacturers alike, it validates that biological systems can deliver reliable compliance while producing a usable algae biomass. This recognition underscores algae’s growing role in resilient, next-generation water infrastructure. Economic Durability as the New Cleantech Mandate Cleantech Group highlights a shift from efficiency-driven innovation to durability-driven systems. How does Gross-Wen’s technology embody economic durability, particularly for municipalities and industrial customers operating under tighter capital and regulatory constraints? Gross-Wen’s technology delivers economic durability by reducing energy use, lowering greenhouse gas emissions, and minimizing chemical and sludge costs for municipalities and industrial operators, including food and beverage facilities. The treatment process also produces algae biomass as a viable byproduct, creating opportunities to offset operating costs. This combination supports long-term affordability under increasing regulatory and capital constraints. Water, Climate, and National Resilience Water security is increasingly intersecting with climate resilience and national security. How do you see algae-based wastewater treatment contributing to long-term water independence and resource security in the U.S. and globally? Algae-based wastewater treatment reduces reliance on energy-intensive processes while enabling nutrient recovery and water reuse at both municipal plants and industrial facilities. For food and beverage producers, this supports compliance and operational resilience while lowering emissions. At a broader level, it strengthens water independence and resource security in the face of climate volatility. Scalability in a Competitive Market With investment and attention concentrating in select “grow” sectors like AI and critical minerals, how has Gross-Wen positioned itself to scale in a market where capital efficiency, predictability, and proven deployment matter more than ever? We’ve positioned Gross-Wen to scale by focusing on standardized, capital-efficient systems with predictable performance for both municipal utilities and industrial customers. In sectors like food and beverage, proven energy savings, emissions reductions, and consistent biomass production are more important than speculative innovation. Repeat deployments and operating data have been central to our growth. Carbon, Nutrients, and Circular Value Creation Gross-Wen’s system not only treats wastewater but captures carbon and recovers nutrients for reuse. How important is this circular value proposition in helping customers justify adoption—and how do you see markets evolving for recovered nutrients and algae-derived products? The circular value proposition is critical because nutrients and carbon are captured into algae biomass during treatment, reducing greenhouse gas emissions while producing a usable product. This helps both municipalities and industrial users justify investment beyond compliance alone. We see growing demand for recovered nutrients and algae-derived products as sustainability and cost pressures continue to align. From Pilot Projects to Infrastructure Mainstay Many climate technologies struggle to move from pilots to widespread infrastructure adoption. What have been the key lessons Gross-Wen has learned in bridging that gap, and what policy or procurement changes would most accelerate deployment? The key lesson has been designing systems that integrate seamlessly into existing municipal plants and food and beverage operations. Demonstrating consistent performance alongside energy, emissions, and biomass benefits in real-world facilities builds trust. Procurement policies that prioritize lifecycle value over lowest upfront cost would significantly accelerate deployment. Innovation Philosophy in a Pressure-Cooker Environment The cleantech ecosystem is described as a “pressure cooking” environment, with fewer technologies breaking out. How do you maintain innovation velocity while ensuring reliability and predictability for customers who depend on mission-critical water systems? We maintain innovation velocity by tightly linking biological advances to operational reliability for both municipal and industrial users. Every improvement must reduce energy use, lower emissions, or improve biomass outcomes without increasing complexity. That discipline ensures innovation strengthens, rather than destabilizes, mission-critical systems. Looking Ahead: The Next Five Years As AI-driven demand, climate volatility, and resource constraints intensify, what role do you envision Gross-Wen Technologies playing in reshaping how cities and industries think about wastewater—not as a liability, but as a strategic asset? Over the next five years, we see municipalities and food and beverage companies increasingly treating wastewater as a strategic resource. Gross-Wen will help transform treatment systems into platforms that deliver clean water, reduced emissions, and valuable biomass—reshaping wastewater infrastructure for long-term resilience and value creation. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3572/irrigation-is-no-longer-about-yield-alone-frank-yan-country-manager-china-komet-irrigation.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3572/irrigation-is-no-longer-about-yield-alone-frank-yan-country-manager-china-komet-irrigation.html Mon, 09 Feb 2026 10:43:48 +0530 Komet positions its low-pressure sprinklers to support water-saving KPIs, data verification, and climate-resilient farming In an exclusive Agrospectrum interview, Frank Yan, Country Manager China at Komet Irrigation, says Asia—particularly China and India—is central to Komet’s 2026 growth strategy because it sits at the intersection of acute water stress, food security pressure, and large-scale irrigation potential. China remains the most urgent market commercially and environmentally, where government-led water-saving policies, performance-based subsidies, and a mature pivot OEM ecosystem create strong demand for Komet’s low-pressure, high-uniformity sprinklers, while India is viewed as a longer-term scale test case constrained by infrastructure, farm size, and farmer financing. Yan emphasizes that the biggest gap today is not technology but market proof—calling for field demonstrations and data-driven evidence to clearly show farmers how efficient irrigation stabilizes yields, reduces energy costs, and manages climate risk. By 2026, Komet’s success in Asia will be defined less by short-term sales and more by brand leadership—measured by widespread OEM adoption, farmer trust, and its systems becoming the default choice for water-efficient mechanized irrigation. Asia’s Water Stress Moment Asia is entering a critical decade for water security, with agriculture at the center of the challenge. How does Komet view Asia’s role in its global growth strategy for 2026, and which markets are most urgent—both commercially and from a water-stress perspective? Asia has more than half the world’s population but less freshwater per capita than almost any other continent. Water stress is driven by population growth, urbanization, climate change, and poor governance — not just natural scarcity. China's water problem is worse than most of the other Asian countries simply because of the high population pressure and extremely uneven distribution of the water recourses in the country. India is another country that has a huge pressure from the point of view of water crisis and the need for agricultural production. Komet's products are almost exclusively serving the pivot irrigation market, which requires many conditions be sufficient to support the market growth. Pivot irrigation can only be used when the farm size is big enough; the right infrastructure exists (water source, power supply) and enough money for the initial investment. China has all of these essential elements for pivot irrigation except for the farm size which is relatively small for pivot irrigation. However, the Chinese government spent billions of dollars during the 2010's in promoting the pivot irrigation in the northern part of the country resulting in over 100 thousand pivots installed in less than a decade. There were over 100 pivot companies in China during the peak time of Water Saving irrigation Campaign from 2012-2018. The focus has shifted to drip irrigation in recent years because they found out that drip irrigation saves even more water. The number of pivot manufacturers has dropped from over 100 to merely 11 today. With the fast development of the supply chain in almost all the industrial sectors in China, the pivot manufacturing has been greatly improved, the quality and functionality of the pivot products are at par with the western companies like Valmont and Lindsay. Their focus has been selling into the international markets in the last ten years due to their large production capacity and the decreasing demand in the domestic market . India as a Scale Test Case India represents one of the world’s largest irrigation markets, yet adoption remains uneven across regions and farm sizes. What structural barriers—economic, behavioral, or policy-related—does Komet see as the biggest constraints to scaling efficient irrigation in India? India has a great potential from the population and food security points of view, but the pivot market won't have substantial growth until the basic infrastructure such as water and power supply has been developed in the major agricultural area. The other limiting factor in Indian is the farm size. Pivot irrigation is more efficient when the size of the field reaches over 30 hectares while 86 per cent of the farms in India are smaller than 2 Ha. Hose reel market in India has a great potential for growth because it covers smaller field and its relatively easier to setup and initial investment is low. Komet's big gun products should fit the hose reel market in India well. However, the biggest constraint in this market is the investment. It has to come from the government at the beginning since the farmers have no money to invest. China's experiences shows that only government can start the irrigation market development in developing countries.  From Subsidies to Sustainability Public subsidies have historically shaped irrigation adoption across Asia. How is Komet positioning its solutions in a policy environment that is gradually shifting from input subsidies toward water-use efficiency, climate resilience, and outcomes-based agriculture? Since the early 2010s, China’s central and provincial governments have included sprinkler irrigation machines (including center pivots and hose reels) in the national agricultural machinery purchase subsidy program. By 2023–2025, subsidies covered 30–50 per cent of equipment costs, with some regions offering additional local top-ups. In key grain-producing provinces like Hebei, Henan, Shandong, and Inner Mongolia, thousands of pivots and hose-reel units were deployed under subsidized programs. Infrastructure Integration Investments went beyond equipment to include water source development (wells, reservoirs), pressurized pipe networks, and smart control systems, enabling efficient operation of mechanized irrigation. Since 2011, China has prioritized “high-standard farmland” construction, targeting 1 billion mu (~67 million hectares) by 2030. This includes installing modern irrigation systems like center pivots and hose reels, especially in arid regions (e.g., Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia, Heilongjiang). China launched the “Red Line” water policy, capping national water use at 670 billion m³/year by 2030. Provinces must meet water-use efficiency KPIs, driving adoption of precision irrigation. Starting around 2020–2022, China began transitioning from pure input-based subsidies (e.g., “buy a machine, get cash”) toward performance- or output-based incentives: Linking subsidies to water savings, crop yield improvements, or fertilizer reduction (part of the national “fertilizer and pesticide zero-growth” and “water-saving agriculture” strategies). Promoting water rights trading pilots and quota-based allocation in arid regions (e.g., Northwest China). Since 2019, provinces like Gansu and Ningxia have piloted “water-saving performance payments”, where farmers receive bonuses based on verified water savings or yield per unit of water, not just equipment ownership. National projects integrate IoT sensors, remote control, and water metering with pivot/hose-reel systems to enable data-driven water allocation and subsidy verification. As an upstream supplier of high-efficiency sprinklers products for pivots and hose reels, Komet can contribute to China’s policy evolution in the following ways: Enable Precision Water Application: Komet’s low-pressure, uniform distribution sprinklers reduce evaporation and runoff, directly improving crop per drop metrics required under China’s water caps. Support Verification of Water Savings: By integrating Komet sprinklers with flow meters and telemetry (common in Chinese smart irrigation projects), actual water use can be monitored—enabling performance-based subsidies rather than mere equipment purchase rewards. Align with China’s “Green Agriculture” Standards: Komet’s CE-certified, energy-efficient designs help Chinese integrators qualify for green procurement lists and provincial eco-subsidies tied to ISO 14046 (water footprint). Smallholders vs. Commercial Farms Asia’s irrigation demand spans smallholder farmers, plantation crops, and large commercial operations. In 2026, how is Komet balancing product design and go-to-market strategies across these vastly different customer segments without diluting impact or margins?  Komet's product lines are limited and so are the focus of the company's efforts in marketing and sales. Small holders in any market are unlikely to be using pivot irrigation therefore not in client group for Komet. Big guns and sprinklers are the main focus of Komet's business; the focus of the company should be on marketing its unique design around low pressure/energy requirement and its superior uniformity of its products. Technology vs. Adoption Gap Efficient irrigation technology is increasingly available, yet on-ground adoption lags potential. From Komet’s experience, is the bigger gap today technological capability, affordability, farmer trust, or last-mile execution—and how is your Asia strategy addressing that gap? The technology is available and Komet's advantage has been proven, however, that advantage has not been shown clearly to the customers. I believe that demonstration of Komet's product advantage needs to be conducted in the market. Climate Variability and System Design With rainfall patterns becoming more erratic, irrigation is no longer just about yield but risk management. How is climate volatility reshaping demand for Komet’s solutions in Asia, and what changes are you making to system design, data use, or service models in response? Irrigation in its core should be about ensuring agricultural production rather than simply water-saving. However, that message has not been clearly and completely crossed to the farmers. Helping farmers understand the core value of efficient irrigation and the key role of best designed sprinkler systems is the key. We need to let the data and fact tell the true story Localization and Partnerships Water management is deeply local—driven by soil, crops, aquifers, and regulation. How important are local partnerships, manufacturing, and service networks to Komet’s Asia and India expansion, and where do you draw the line between global standardization and local customization? With today's manufacturing capability and the nature of the Komet's products (smaller size and bigger value), localization of manufacturing is not necessary. Marketing and selling Komets products, however, requires well developed dealer network and mutually beneficial partnerships with our OEMS and distributors. For China, the existing pivot OEMs are working very aggressively in developing international markets especially in areas that irrigation market is fast developing. We need to work very closely with them in building Komet's product and technology into their overall value system. The fact that most of the developing markets are underdeveloped in terms of water and power supply demands superior products like KPT sprinklers where low pressure/energy is needed to operate. We should focus on marketing this distinguished technological advantage; the lower energy means more profits for the farmers.  Defining Success Beyond Sales By the end of 2026, what would success look like for Komet in Asia and India—not just in terms of revenue or hectares irrigated, but in measurable outcomes such as water savings, farmer income stability, or climate resilience? The best success for Komet would be an improved brand image. It would be a great success in the China market if 8 out of 10 pivot customers use Komet products and all OEMs use more Komet products than last year!  --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3566/fao-on-balancing-climate-urgency-and-food-safety-in-emerging-agrifood-technologies.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3566/fao-on-balancing-climate-urgency-and-food-safety-in-emerging-agrifood-technologies.html Thu, 05 Feb 2026 11:17:22 +0530 FAO outlines a pragmatic, trust-first pathway for deploying environmental inhibitors at scale In an exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Vittorio Fattori, Food Safety Officer at the FAO, explains how governments can urgently deploy environmental inhibitors to reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions while upholding rigorous food safety standards. He emphasizes a stepwise, proportionate risk assessment approach, allowing rapid scale-up when residues are not detectable, and targeted human risk assessment when they are plausible—ensuring climate action does not undermine consumer trust. Fattori highlights the importance of harmonized Codex standards to reduce regulatory fragmentation, prevent trade disruptions, and provide predictability for innovators and producers globally. Addressing equity, he underscores FAO’s focus on feasible pathways for low- and middle-income countries, including reliance on international scientific evaluations and proportionate controls aligned with national capacities. Framing environmental inhibitors as part of a broader mitigation toolbox—sometimes transitional, sometimes structural—he stresses that transparent communication and continuous reassessment are essential to sustaining public confidence while advancing lower-emission agrifood systems. Balancing Climate Urgency and Food Safety Rigor Given the urgency to reduce agricultural methane and nitrous oxide emissions, how does FAO recommend balancing accelerated deployment of environmental inhibitors with the inherently cautious timelines of food safety risk assessment, without undermining public trust? While recognizing the urgency to cut methane and nitrous oxide emissions from agrifood systems, we also emphasize that ensuring food safety is essential when introducing new practices and technologies. The urgency to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions together with the need to maintain food safety, are some the multiple factors (including also for example animal health and welfare, environmental benefits and more) that decision makers will need to balance in their decision-making process. We believe that by considering food safety at the outset, we can ensure that efforts to reduce environmental impacts are effective, trusted, and well understood. In the case of environmental inhibitors, if no residues are detectable in foods with sensitive methods under proposed use conditions, risk concerns are minimal and scale‑up can proceed with routine verification. If residues are plausible, a proportionate human risk assessment (hazard + exposure) should be completed before widespread use. This staged approach allows mitigation benefits to begin promptly while ensuring consumer protection remains at the core of any proposed intervention. Evidence Thresholds and Precaution What level and type of residue evidence does FAO consider sufficient to move from experimental or pilot use of environmental inhibitors to widespread commercial adoption, especially in contexts where long-term dietary exposure data may be limited? The minimum evidence threshold is to determine whether residues of the parent compound and/or relevant metabolites are present in foods of animal or plant origin under realistic use (i.e. following good agricultural/animal husbandry practice). When robust residue studies show no detectable residues, further studies may be unnecessary. If residues are found, it will be important to follow these steps: Hazard characterization (toxicology of parent + metabolites, using established FAO/WHO principles) to derive health-based guidance values where needed Dietary Exposure assessment Risk characterization that can support risk management measures such as Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) When data are limited and there is scientific uncertainty, it could be considered to conduct  human exposure assessment(s) according to the Codex Alimentarius “Guidelines for rapid risk analysis following instances of detection of contaminants in food where there is no regulatory level”, possibly followed by a full risk assessment specific to human health if the residues in question meet the exclusion criteria of the guidelines. In this regard it is important to recognize that substances already regulated as pesticides or veterinary drugs typically follow their full premarket pathways. Regulatory Fragmentation and Global Trade With environmental inhibitors classified differently across jurisdictions—as veterinary drugs, feed additives, or soil amendments—how does FAO see harmonized Codex standards reducing the risk of trade disruptions and regulatory arbitrage? Today, environmental inhibitors (EIs) can be classified according to national regulations as either as veterinary drugs, feed additives, fertilizer components, or pesticides, which can lead to different data packages and approval routes across markets; this can create a risk of trade friction when residues are handled inconsistently. FAO supports harmonization via Codex. In this context, FAO/WHO expert bodies - e.g. the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) - provide independent scientific advice to underpin Codex standards, including Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) where appropriate. Converging on common data requirements, residue definitions, and risk assessment principles reduces regulatory arbitrage, improves predictability for innovators and producers, and protects consumers while facilitating trade. Cumulative and Systemic Risk Assessment How does FAO propose assessing cumulative food safety risks when environmental inhibitors are used alongside other inputs such as pesticides, veterinary drugs, and feed additives, particularly in intensive production systems? It is important to begin with the foundational EIs assessment (residues → hazard→ exposure) and, where residues are expected, considering aggregate dietary exposure from food and water consistent with existing pesticide/veterinary drug paradigms. When an EI shares toxicological endpoints with other regulated inputs (e.g., similar modes of action or common target organs), assessors would consider cumulative risk assessment considerations aligned with established Codex/Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA)/Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) practices. Practically, this means define the residue of concern (parent/metabolites), ensure analytical methods across relevant matrices, and evaluate whether use patterns in intensive systems plausibly raise combined exposure near health-based guidance values. Equity and Adoption in Low- and Middle-Income Countries What considerations is FAO giving to the food safety assessment and regulatory capacity challenges faced by low- and middle-income countries, where monitoring EI residues in food may be technically or financially constrained? We are attentive to capacity constraints in  Low- and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) — notably the cost and technical demands of residue methods, surveillance, and regulatory review. Our guidance therefore stresses stepwise, feasible pathways: begin with plausibility screening of residue transfer, leverage validated methods and internationally available scientific opinions (e.g. from the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA)/Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) practices), and apply proportionate controls (label conditions, use restrictions) that match national laboratory capacities. Through the Food Safety work, FAO provides tools, training, and normative guidance that Member countries can adapt, helping them adopt mitigation technologies without compromising consumer protection or market access. Managing Uncertainty in Novel Agrifood Technologies In cases where scientific uncertainty remains—especially regarding chronic exposure or indirect food chain transfer—how does FAO advise policymakers to apply the precautionary principle without stalling climate mitigation innovations? When uncertainty remains — especially about chronic exposure or indirect transfer along the food chain — it can be important to use conservative exposure assumptions and interim risk management measures (e.g., restricted use conditions, defined withdrawal intervals, targeted monitoring) while additional data are generated. As mentioned, existing guidelines like Codex Guidelines for rapid risk analysis following instances of detection of contaminants in food where there is no regulatory level (CXG 92-2019), can prove to be useful in specific circumstances without substituting for full premarket evaluation required for pesticides or veterinary drugs. This approach protects consumers without stalling climate mitigation innovation when that shows clear efficacy and a low likelihood of significant human dietary exposure. Public Perception and Consumer Confidence How important is transparent communication about food safety risk assessments for environmental inhibitors in maintaining consumer confidence, and what role should FAO play in shaping that global narrative? Transparent communication is essential. With this work we wanted to bring some clarity on what environmental inhibitors are, why they are used, and how food safety is assessed. We also wanted to explain in accessible terms what residue testing shows and how standards are set internationally. Our new report and technical brief were designed to explain the science and outline a clear, stepwise safety pathway. In this respect, we support our members by generate and sharing timely, actionable insights on food safety, as well as by providing proactive and strategic guidance on emerging food safety issues. Long-Term Agrifood System Transformation Do you see environmental inhibitors as a transitional solution toward lower-emission agrifood systems, or as a long-term structural component—and how does that distinction influence FAO’s approach to food safety foresight and regulatory guidance? Environmental inhibitors are some of the tools available within a portfolio of measures to lower agrifood systems’ emissions. In some production contexts, EIs may be transitional — bridging to system redesigns (e.g., breeding, feed system changes, nitrogen management). In others, certain inhibitors could become more structural components, provided they consistently demonstrate safety, efficacy, and practicality. This framing shapes the notion of establishing durable, harmonized safety frameworks (including, where needed, Codex MRLs), maintaining surveillance and periodic reassessment as science evolves, and considering the integration of EIs into broader mitigation strategies rather than viewing them in isolation. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3565/geopolitics-over-geology-limits-of-venezuelan-oil-in-volatile-market.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3565/geopolitics-over-geology-limits-of-venezuelan-oil-in-volatile-market.html Tue, 03 Feb 2026 17:52:29 +0530 Venezuela’s vast reserves offer theoretical relief to global supply concerns, but sanctions, infrastructure decay, and uncertainty mean markets continue to price risk—not barrels Global oil markets are increasingly defined by a contradiction. Forecasts from major agencies and analysts suggest that the world is not running out of oil; on the contrary, supply capacity appears sufficient to meet demand well into the future. Yet prices remain volatile, reacting sharply to geopolitical tensions, sanctions announcements, and political signals. This disconnect reflects a deeper transformation in how oil markets operate: geology matters less than governance, and confidence matters more than capacity. Venezuela epitomizes this paradox. The country holds the largest proven oil reserves in the world, yet its production remains severely constrained. While Venezuelan oil is often invoked as a potential solution to tight markets or rising prices, its real influence on global supply and pricing stability is far more limited—and far more conditional—than such narratives imply. This article examines the global oil supply outlook amid geopolitical risk, focusing on Venezuela’s uncertain production trajectory, the role of sanctions and investment constraints, implications for the United States and India, spillover effects on the agricultural sector, and the longer-term structural forces reshaping energy markets. Plenty of Oil, Persistent Volatility On paper, the global oil system appears well supplied. U.S. shale production remains near record levels, OPEC+ retains spare capacity, and demand growth in advanced economies has slowed as efficiency gains and electrification take hold. Medium-term outlooks generally point to a structural surplus rather than scarcity. Yet oil prices remain highly sensitive to geopolitical developments. The reason is that markets increasingly price reliability, not just volume. Sanctions, political instability, underinvestment, and infrastructure decay have become central variables shaping expectations about which barrels can actually reach the market—and under what conditions. Venezuela sits squarely at this intersection of abundance and uncertainty. Why Prices Stay Reactive Despite Oversupply Even when supply forecasts point to a structural surplus, oil prices remain sensitive and often volatile. This paradox reflects the interaction of three powerful market forces—each shaping expectations and risk pricing in ways that go beyond simple barrel counts. First: Spare capacity is uneven and politically sensitive - Although headline supply figures may show a surplus, the location and accessibility of that spare capacity matter. Much of the available buffer resides in regions with political risk, unstable governance, or constrained export channels. For example, major producers in the Middle East, Africa, and parts of Latin America face ongoing geopolitical tensions that can suddenly affect output or logistics. Even when inventories are adequate overall, perceived vulnerabilities along key pipelines and shipping routes (such as the Strait of Hormuz) can prompt traders to price in risk premiums that support price levels higher than what fundamentals alone would dictate. Second: Upstream investment is constrained and risk-averse- Years of price volatility and uncertainty about the long-term demand trajectory have caused energy companies to tighten capital budgets and focus on short-cycle assets. Many major oil firms have shifted capital toward dividends, share buybacks, or low-cost production hubs rather than large, long-lead projects. This means that while current output may be robust, the pipeline of new capacity that can respond quickly to supply shocks is thin. Financial markets now integrate this investment risk into price expectations; the margin for error is smaller, making prices more sensitive to news about supply disruptions or policy shifts. Third: Sanctions and regulatory risk are structural, not temporary - Sanctions and regulatory constraints—once viewed as episodic disruptions—are now core parts of the oil market’s structure. Countries like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela face long-term export limitations or legal uncertainties that shape how traders, refiners, and investors assess future supply. Sanctions can dislocate supply flows even when physical barrels exist, creating ambiguity about which volumes are reliably accessible. This structural uncertainty embeds risk premiums into pricing that can keep prices elevated or volatile despite a broad supply surplus. When these three forces interact—geopolitical sensitivity, constrained investment responsiveness, and structural policy risk—they produce a market where prices reflect not just how much oil exists, but how confidently markets believe it will be delivered in the future. Even modest geopolitical developments can therefore trigger outsized reactions in prices because they alter expectations about one or more of these underlying determinants. Venezuela: Technical Potential, Fragile Reality Venezuela’s production collapse is not a geological story—it is an institutional one. Years of mismanagement, sanctions, workforce attrition, and infrastructure neglect have reduced output to a fraction of historical levels. Refineries, pipelines, and upgraders require extensive rehabilitation, while extra-heavy crude production depends on diluents and specialized processing capacity. Even when sanctions are partially eased or licenses granted, uncertainty over policy durability continues to deter long-term investment. As Gilbert Michaud, PhD, Assistant Professor of Environmental Policy at Loyola University Chicago, explains: “Global oil markets are highly sensitive to geopolitical issues such as conflicts and sanctions. Venezuela has the technical potential to increase oil output, but large-scale increases that bring down prices or increase investor confidence are unlikely. Uncertainty around access to capital, policy, safety, and related issues will reinforce price instability, especially if global disruptions arise elsewhere. On paper, the Venezuela case offers hope of oil supply, but it likely will not translate into price stability with investment hesitation and policy uncertainty.” This gap between technical potential and operational reality defines Venezuela’s role in today’s oil market. The United States: Structural Fit, Not Volume Impact Since December 2018, U.S. imports of Venezuelan oil have remained below roughly 500,000 barrels per day, compared with total U.S. crude imports of approximately 8.5 million barrels per day. The constraint has not been resource availability, but political risk and regulatory uncertainty. As Javier Palomarez, Founder and CEO of the United States Hispanic Business Council, notes: “Despite Venezuela having the largest proven oil reserves in the world, the United States has imported less than 500,000 barrels of oil per day from the country since December 2018. To put that in perspective, we import a total of 8.5 million barrels a day from around the world. Increasing Venezuelan production and imports, particularly given their large amount of resources, could be a way to significantly increase American oil supply. However, this is contingent on a variety of variables, some of which are simply out of our control. American oil companies need stability, predictability, regional peace and cooperation from the people of Venezuela in order to effectively operate in the nation. While subsidies and guarantees have been floated by Trump, only time will tell if the proper infrastructure for meaningful production can be developed in the country. Years of neglect, sanctions, unrest and more have left Venezuelan oil production stunted.” In practice, Venezuelan oil matters to the U.S. less as a volume driver than as a structural input—particularly for refiners that require heavy crude to balance light shale output. Two Market Scenarios for Venezuelan Supply According to Igor Isaev, Head of the Analytics Center at Mind Money, access to Venezuelan oil affects market expectations more than global balances: “Access to Venezuelan oil by the United States is unlikely to fundamentally change the global oil balance, but it does meaningfully affect the structure of supply and market expectations. At this stage, two scenarios appear realistic. In the first scenario, the Venezuelan factor supports prices by amplifying geopolitical risk. It draws attention to vulnerabilities in other sensitive regions, most notably Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, through which much of the world’s oil transits. Heightened risk perception tends to widen risk premiums and support prices. In the second scenario, Venezuelan supply contributes to relative price stability rather than upside pressure. As markets adapt and additional barrels are absorbed, prices could remain range-bound around $50–60 per barrel, assuming no major shocks and continued confidence in medium-term supply. A critical element here is oil quality. Venezuela produces heavy crude, essential for deep refining and diesel production — segments where the U.S. faces a structural deficit. American output is dominated by light shale grades, while U.S. refineries require heavy crude blending for optimal utilization. In practice, only two large-scale sources exist: Canada and Venezuela. Canada’s Alberta fields are mature, with declining production rates limiting supply growth.” This framing underscores why Venezuelan oil can influence price stability or risk premiums without fundamentally altering supply-demand balances. Agriculture: An Overlooked Casualty of Energy Volatility Oil market instability has direct and often underappreciated consequences for the global agricultural sector. Fuel is a core input for modern farming, powering tractors, irrigation systems, harvesters, and transportation networks. Even modest increases in oil prices can significantly raise operating costs, particularly for energy-intensive crops. Beyond fuel, oil prices strongly influence fertilizer markets, especially nitrogen-based fertilizers derived from hydrocarbons. Energy price volatility often translates into fertilizer price spikes, squeezing farm margins and, in some regions, reducing application rates—ultimately affecting yields. Transportation is another critical channel. Global food supply chains rely on trucking, rail, and shipping. Higher fuel costs raise food prices downstream, amplifying inflationary pressure in import-dependent regions across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. From this perspective, Venezuelan uncertainty matters less as a supply story and more as a volatility amplifier. Even limited geopolitical shocks that push oil prices higher can ripple through agricultural systems, intensifying food insecurity and political sensitivity around food prices. India: Energy Security Through Optionality India is the world’s third-largest oil consumer, importing over 85 per cent of its crude requirements to meet the needs of a rapidly growing economy. Its energy security is therefore highly sensitive to global price swings, supply disruptions, and the geopolitical dynamics of key exporters. In this context, the country’s crude import strategy emphasizes diversification, optionality, and strategic resilience rather than reliance on any single source. Indian refineries are among the most complex in the world, capable of processing a wide range of crude qualities, including Venezuelan heavy and extra-heavy grades. These refineries can handle high-sulfur crude and produce refined products such as diesel, naphtha, and jet fuel, making heavy crude an important component for optimizing throughput and output quality. Despite this capability, India has historically treated Venezuelan oil as optional diversification, not core supply. Several factors reinforce this approach: Sanctions and political risk: U.S.-led sanctions on Venezuela, coupled with broader regulatory uncertainty, limit India’s ability to rely on Venezuelan barrels for long-term planning. Any sudden tightening of sanctions or administrative hurdles can disrupt cargo delivery or financial settlements. Logistical challenges: Transporting Venezuelan crude to India is complex and costly. Routes involve long-haul shipping across the Atlantic and Indian Ocean, adding transit time, insurance costs, and exposure to maritime geopolitical risks. Production reliability: Venezuela’s oil sector has been plagued by infrastructure neglect, underinvestment, and workforce attrition, creating a supply profile that is inherently unpredictable. Even if shipments are contracted, actual delivery volumes can be uncertain. Yet, the mere potential for Venezuelan barrels to enter global markets has strategic value for India. This optionality allows the country to negotiate more favorable terms with other suppliers, particularly in the Middle East, by leveraging the perception of alternative sources. Venezuelan crude acts as a floating variable in India’s energy calculus: it can be tapped when favorable, but India is not forced to depend on it when risk is high. Furthermore, the optionality strategy aligns with India’s broader energy diversification goals, which include increasing imports from Africa, the Americas, and Central Asia, while also investing in refining partnerships and storage infrastructure domestically. By avoiding overreliance on politically sensitive sources like Venezuela, India minimizes vulnerability to shocks that could ripple through domestic fuel markets, inflation, and industrial costs. In short, Venezuelan crude offers technical advantages and strategic leverage, but India’s approach demonstrates that energy security is about flexibility and risk management—not simply accessing more barrels. In an era of global supply volatility, optionality can be as valuable as volume, particularly for a major emerging-market importer like India. A Structural Reframing of the Debate Some analysts argue that the focus on Venezuela itself overstates its importance in a world where demand dynamics are shifting. As Maria Pechurina, Director of International Trade at Peacock Tariff Consulting, argues: “Venezuela isn’t a supply story—it’s a distraction. The world already produces more oil than it needs, demand is structurally declining, and no amount of geopolitical theater can change that. Long-term oil prices won’t be set by Maduro, Trump, or sanctions, but by how fast Chinese and European drivers switch to electric vehicles. In energy markets, electrons—not egos—will decide the future.” This perspective situates Venezuela as a short-term geopolitical variable within a much larger structural transition. Conclusion: Abundance Without Assurance The global oil market today is defined by abundance without assurance. Venezuela’s reserves are vast, but their relevance is constrained by political risk, infrastructure decay, investment hesitation, and shifting long-term demand. While Venezuelan oil can influence refining economics, market psychology, and price volatility—with real consequences for sectors like agriculture—it is unlikely to fundamentally rebalance global supply. As oil markets evolve, prices will be shaped less by reserves and more by confidence, credibility, and demand transformation. In that environment, stability will depend not on who controls the barrels, but on how quickly the world’s energy system moves beyond them. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3564/why-ingredients-are-new-brand-currency-in-asias-food-markets.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3564/why-ingredients-are-new-brand-currency-in-asias-food-markets.html Tue, 03 Feb 2026 09:50:22 +0530 Cargill’s Yuchu Zhang on trust, texture, sweeteners, and how ingredient intelligence is reshaping pricing power and innovation across APAC In an exclusive interview with AgroSpectrum, Yuchu Zhang, Vice President – R&D, Cargill Food APAC, explains how ingredient perception has become central to brand trust, premiumisation, and competitive advantage in Asia’s rapidly evolving food markets. Drawing on insights from IngredienTracker, she highlights a structural shift where consumers scrutinise labels, reward familiar and natural-sounding ingredients, and are willing to pay selectively for quality, sustainability, and functionality. Yuchu discusses how manufacturers must balance advanced food science with cultural familiarity—across sweeteners, fats and oils, cocoa, and texture innovation—to drive differentiation without sacrificing affordability. Looking ahead, she underscores ingredient intelligence as a critical innovation engine, separating companies that anticipate consumer expectations from those that merely react to them. Ingredient perception has moved from the margins to the center of purchase decisions in Asia. Your data shows over 70 per cent of consumers now check ingredient labels, and more than half actively share ingredient knowledge. From Cargill’s vantage point, is this merely a transparency trend—or does it mark a deeper structural shift in how brand trust and pricing power are built in Asian food markets ? We don’t see this as a short-term transparency trend. It is a structural shift in how brand trust and pricing power are built in Asia. When over 70 per cent of consumers are checking labels and more than half are actively sharing ingredient knowledge, ingredients stop being a compliance or back-of-the-pack issue and become a front-of-mind brand asset. Trust now goes beyond the brand – it is also going into the finer print. Historically in many Asian markets, brand heritage, scale, or price were enough to secure trust. Today, consumers increasingly ‘audit’ products through ingredients before deciding if they want to consume it. Secondly, our data shows that more than 58 per cent of consumers are willing to pay a premium for products with higher-quality, sustainable, or fortified ingredients, and they convince their peers to do the same. High quality and healthy ingredients signal value. Pricing power increasingly comes from these ingredient choices that consumers are seeking and can recommend to their family and friends. For manufacturers, this means ingredient strategy is no longer just an R&D decision; it’s a core commercial and brand strategy lever. The study reveals a sharp polarity: “natural-sounding” ingredients are increasingly rewarded, while scientific or unfamiliar names face stronger backlash than in earlier waves. How should food manufacturers reconcile this consumer psychology with the growing reliance on advanced food science, functional fortification, and precision formulation—especially in categories like beverages, infant nutrition, and ready meals ? While it seems that unfamiliar or scientific names are facing stronger backlash than in previous waves, this does not reflect a rejection of food science, but rather how consumers process trust and familiarity.Asian consumers respond to the ‘naming’ of an ingredient. Its nomenclature, framing, familiarity besides the brand credibility all matter more than scientific complexity. Our experience shows that advanced functionality can be accepted when positioned through recognizable sources, everyday benefits, and consistent brand trust, rather than technical explanations. Manufacturers should not retreat from advanced food science but instead translate it into benefits consumers understand. Lead with clear health outcomes, anchor formulations in familiar sources such as plants or fermentation and simplify or localise product ingredient language to build trust and acceptance. Willingness to pay is rising—but selectively. With 58 per cent of consumers willing to pay a 10 per cent premium for higher-quality, sustainable, or nutrient-fortified ingredients, how should companies decide where to invest in premiumisation without overengineering products or eroding mass affordability in Asia’s price-sensitive markets ? According to a report by Bain, consumers in fast growing markets like China, Indonesia are more conscious of environmental and social factors than those in mature markets like Australia and Singapore, which triggers sustainable purchasing in those markets. Consumers in emerging Southeast Asian markets are prioritizing affordability and value but despite that still seek sustainability and wellness-based products. Hence, in my opinion, successful manufacturers will have to adopt a segmented premiumisation strategy. Companies should focus premium investment on key categories and ingredients that deliver maximum health/ nutrition impact, rather than on entire portfolios. Chocolate and cocoa are emerging as both indulgence and ethics categories. IngredienTracker highlights rising expectations around local sourcing, sustainability, and authenticity alongside flavor and texture innovation. Do you see cocoa in APAC evolving into a provenance-driven category—similar to coffee or wine—or will indulgence always outweigh origin storytelling ? Chocolate consumption has increased over the last several years and is projected to continue to increase.There are many factors driving the increase in chocolate consumption including experiential consumption, i.e. consumers looking for an indulgent experience rather than just a snack, and the growing availability of different varieties – provenance, low sugar, zero sugar, dark chocolate, sustainable chocolate etc. While expectations around sustainability, ethical sourcing, and local production are rising, this does not indicate a full shift toward a provenance-led category. Instead, origin and authenticity act as optional value enhancers. A large part of chocolate consumption remains driven by nostalgia. While multi-sensory experiences are driving an increase in consumption, many consumers are also choosing the brands and products they know and have grown up with. In sweeteners, “less sugar” is no longer enough—functionality now matters. With additive sweetener use in beverages rising sharply and consumers gravitating toward monk fruit, brown sugar, and cane sugar, how do you see the next phase of sweetener innovation unfolding: reformulation, metabolic health positioning, or ingredient blending strategies that balance taste, trust, and regulation ? IngredienTracker APAC 2025 shows that sugar-free and low-sugar claims are rising, with additive sweeteners in beverages increasing from 18 per cent to 29 per cent of launches across APAC. The next phase of innovation will center on ingredient blending strategies that balance taste, texture and health impact, while ensuring brand trust as well as regulatory compliance. Brands are likely to combine natural sweeteners like monk fruit or brown sugar with functional additives targeting metabolism, gut health, or immunity. Texture has become a premium signal, not just a formulation choice. Asian textures like mochi and boba are now global, and plant-based texturizers are gaining acceptance. How strategically important is texture innovation in differentiating brands today—and do you see texture becoming a stronger driver of value than flavor in certain categories ? While flavor remains the primary driver of consumption, texture has emerged as a strategic lever for differentiation. Asian-inspired textures like mochi and boba enhance the multisensory experience, creating memorable, emotionally engaging products that complement taste rather than replace it. These drives repeat purchase and premium positioning. In categories like beverages, desserts, and snacks, where flavor alone is easily replicated, thoughtful textural innovation can reinforce brand identity, encourage repeat purchase, and deepen consumer loyalty, making it a valuable tool alongside compelling flavor profiles. This strengthens brand equity, supports premium pricing, and makes products harder to replicate, translating sensory innovation directly into measurable commercial advantage. Texture also supports novelty and social sharing, generating buzz and trial. Fats and oils are being re-rated through a health and sustainability lens. As consumers scrutinize oils for cardiovascular, immunity, and clean-label benefits, how should manufacturers rethink legacy formulations—particularly in snacks and ready meals—without compromising shelf life, cost, or taste? The shift towards health and sustainability in our food is reshaping product development across food manufacturers, particularly in snacks and ready meal categories. Cargill’s category professionals not only decipher market trends that shift ingredient choices in mass consumers, but also work closely with industry category leaders to understand the trade offs of new ingredients to legacy formulas to specific consumer segments, and to provide innovative solutions to meet these consumers’ unmet needs. Cargill has a diverse fats and oil portfolio that can support the health and sustainable needs of our consumers. We have stable and heart healthy high oleic oils, blended oils that combine cost effectiveness and nutrition, specialty fats and oil fractions with enhanced performance, and nature powered oil solutions that preserve shelf life instead of synthetic preservatives. Examples include: Low-saturation frying oils (blended oils with high oleic acid), which have over 50 per cent lower saturated acid content compared to traditional frying oils without compromising stability Sunflower seed oil with zero trans fatty acids and corn oil rich in phytosterols Low-contaminant palm oil developed through process optimization and formula upgrades, and meeting EU standards Low-saturation tea beverage oils, which, compared to traditional milk fats and palm oils, are not only lower in saturated acid but also offer better value and enhance the aroma of milk tea Replacement solutions for partially hydrogenated oils, which is the primary source of industrial trans fats, that deliver comparable quality, texture, stability, and shelf life Cargill uses sensory and performance testing on fats and oils in formulas to validate the robustness of the new formulas, and develops new functional oils and delivery systems, to tailor taste, texture in application and storage. We have also invested in technology upgrades at our edible oils facilities to produce better-functioning products Our portfolio, production and category expertise provide category players in the market with taste, shelf life and cost, while addressing consumers’ evolving demand for healthy and sustainable foods IngredienTracker positions insight as an innovation engine, not just a research output. Looking ahead five years, how do you expect ingredient intelligence to reshape the competitive advantage of global ingredient suppliers—and what capabilities will separate companies that lead Asian food innovation from those that merely follow consumer sentiment ? Over the next five years, leading food brands in Asia will be those that anticipate shifts in ingredient perceptions and embed consumer intelligence directly into R&D, rather than treating it as a downstream input. Consumer sentiment and market demand are inseparable from innovation decisions. By introducing scientifically advanced ingredients through familiar, culturally relevant and trustworthy nutrition led narratives, suppliers can help customers cater to emerging consumer demands and unlock new market potential. ----- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3558/inside-cloovers-plan-to-become-shopify-of-energy.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3558/inside-cloovers-plan-to-become-shopify-of-energy.html Fri, 30 Jan 2026 13:17:49 +0530 Jodok Betschart on why execution, ecosystems and capital will define the next decade of clean power In an exclusive Agrospectrum interview, Jodok Betschart, Co-Founder & CEO of Cloover GmbH, explains why Europe has reached a critical inflection point for decentralized energy as AI-driven demand, electrification and grid instability converge. He outlines how Cloover is positioning itself as the operating system for energy independence by solving the sector’s biggest bottleneck—financing—through embedded, asset-first credit and AI-led risk assessment. Betschart also highlights the significance of Cloover’s $1.2 billion institutional financing commitment as validation of distributed energy as a new infrastructure asset class. Looking ahead, he details the company’s installer-centric ecosystem strategy and its ambition to become the global backbone for decentralized energy over the next decade. The Infrastructure Moment You describe Cloover as building the operating system for energy independence. Why is this moment—marked by AI-driven demand growth, grid instability, and electrification—the inflection point for such a platform? The current moment represents a critical inflection point for the European energy sector. Several converging megatrends are creating this “infrastructure moment”: Rising Energy Demand and Grid Instability: The European energy landscape is entering a “defining decade”. Demand is surging, driven by increasing electrification and new, energy-intensive technologies like AI data centers. Simultaneously, centralized power grids are struggling to keep pace, leading to instability and uncertainty Accelerated Electrification: The rapid adoption of electric mobility is exposing deep structural weaknesses in the existing infrastructure. Households and businesses are seeking ways to secure their energy supply and control costs, driving exponential interest in decentralized solutions like solar, batteries, and heat pumps The “Missing Link”: While demand is exploding, the scalable infrastructure to deploy these technologies efficiently is absent . Cloover is this “missing link”—an operating system that connects all stakeholders on a single platform . It is built on the core principles of being asset-first and using automation to replace manual processes, creating a financial and procedural infrastructure that enables the transition to a resilient, independent energy grid. Financing as the Bottleneck Your thesis is that financing, not technology adoption, is the biggest constraint in residential energy. What structural failures in traditional banking does Cloover’s embedded finance model address? The thesis that financing is the primary bottleneck is based on the insight that technology adoption is hindered by structural weaknesses in the traditional financial system. Our model addresses these shortcomings: Fragmentation and Lack of Specialization: Unlike mature markets like automotive, the decentralized energy asset class has few specialized lenders. Traditional banks are often ill-equipped to underwrite loans at the required speed and granularity High Upfront Costs: The significant initial investment for solar, heat pumps, or batteries is a major hurdle for many households, with long payback periods deterring adoption Outdated Credit Metrics: Banks rely on traditional credit scores. Our model, in contrast, is asset-first, focusing on the project’s future energy savings as a key evaluation factor, which allows us to serve customers who might not otherwise qualify Installer Cash Flow Constraints: Small and medium-sized installers suffer from severe cash flow problems, having to purchase expensive equipment upfront. Our principle of embedded financing solves this by integrating working capital and financing directly into their workflow, transforming it from a hurdle into a seamless feature. AI in Credit and Risk Assessment Cloover uses AI-powered underwriting focused on long-term energy savings rather than traditional credit metrics. How do you balance innovation in credit models with risk management and regulatory expectations? Balancing innovation with robust risk management is at the core of our strategy. Our philosophy is that AI’s role is to reduce friction, not to replace human judgment. This balance is achieved through a multi-layered approach: Augmented, Not Automated, Judgment: We use AI to structure complex data, automate repetitive tasks, and provide data-driven recommendations. This augments the expertise of our team, allowing for faster, better-informed decisions while maintaining human oversight. For example, our AI-powered underwriting supplements, rather than replaces, traditional credit metrics Streamlining Point-of-Sale Processes: AI automates standard checks during the application process. This allows installers to manage higher demand and provide immediate, reliable feedback to customers at the point of sale, a critical step in reducing friction Data-Driven Risk Analysis: Our platform continuously collects and analyzes real-time performance data from installed assets. This allows for dynamic risk monitoring and proactive management, enabling us to detect and address potential issues early Asset-Backed Security: The financed energy assets are real, tangible assets, providing an additional layer of security beyond the borrower’s credit profile. This positions them as a transparent, “impact-aligned infrastructure asset class” for investors Partnerships with Regulated Institutions: Our model is validated and backed by a $1.2 billion debt facility from a major European bank and a guarantee from the European Investment Fund (EIF), ensuring adherence to the highest regulatory and risk management standards. The $1.2 Billion Commitment The scale of this financing commitment is unusual for a company at this stage. What does this signal about institutional appetite for distributed energy as an infrastructure asset class? The financing commitment of over $1.2 billion is exceptional and sends several powerful signals: Validation of Distributed Energy as an Asset Class: It confirms that institutional capital now views distributed energy systems not as a niche product, but as a scalable, stable, and attractive infrastructure asset class. Confidence in the Platform Model: Investors are backing the “operating system” that makes this asset class legible and investable. Our platform provides the transparency, performance data, and risk management needed to deploy capital at scale into thousands of decentralized projects. Shift to Infrastructure Capital: The deal structure, combining venture equity with a massive debt facility, is typical of mature infrastructure companies. It signals that Cloover has successfully bridged the gap between the tech world and the capital-intensive world of infrastructure finance. A Precedent for the Industry: This deal sets a new benchmark for the industry, proving that it is possible to mobilize the capital required to meet Europe’s ambitious climate goals. The Installer-Centric Growth Model Cloover positions itself as an enabler—not a competitor—to installers. How critical is this alignment to scaling decentralized energy, and what lessons have you learned from working with thousands of SMEs? Aligning with installers as an enabler is the single most critical factor for scaling decentralized energy. The energy transition rests on the shoulders of tens of thousands of small and medium-sized installation businesses. A model that empowers them leverages the industry’s greatest resource. The crucial lesson is that scaling is an ecosystem problem. Success depends on equipping these key players with the right tools. Our platform was designed to solve their core frustrations: fragmented software, manual processes, and crippling financing bottlenecks. By providing workflow automation, embedded financing, and working capital, we become an indispensable growth engine for them. This creates a powerful win-win situation: installers grow their revenue by an average of 30 per cent, and Cloover grows with every project enabled on the platform. This symbiotic relationship, built on trust, is the engine for scalable growth. From Software to Ecosystem You’ve compared Cloover to the “Shopify of Energy.” What does ecosystem leadership mean in energy—and how do you ensure interoperability across manufacturers, installers, investors, and households? The “Shopify of Energy” comparison means that Cloover provides the core infrastructure for others to operate on. We do not own the value chain; we enable it. Ecosystem leadership is defined by the distinct roles each participant plays on this shared infrastructure. Interoperability is ensured through our API-first and modular architecture, which allows all players to connect and collaborate efficiently: Installers use the platform to sell and manage their projects Manufacturers connect their hardware and associated data streams Investors access standardized project and asset information for the deployment of capital End Customers receive simple, financed access to clean energy Cloover is the shared, interoperable layer that aligns these diverse players, ensuring they can collaborate to deliver decentralized energy at scale. Economics for End Users Homeowners reportedly see 20–30 per cent energy cost savings, while installers generate 30 per cent incremental revenue. How do you sustain these economics as you scale across markets with different subsidy and regulatory regimes? Sustaining these economics relies on a dynamic, software-driven platform, not static subsidies. The core principle is ensuring the monthly savings for a homeowner exceed the financing costs . We achieve this through: Adaptable Software: Our platform is designed to flexibly integrate different regulatory frameworks and subsidy programs. Our ability to pre-finance public subsidies is a key advantage, reducing complexity and improving the offer for the customer. Economies of Scale: As we grow, we negotiate better procurement terms, passing those savings on to installers and homeowners. AI-Powered Optimization: Post-installation, our Energy Management Systems (EMS) use AI to optimize energy generation, storage, and consumption, maximizing savings for the household over the system’s lifetime. Portfolio Diversification: Expanding across multiple European markets reduces our dependence on any single regulatory environment and diversifies risk . Global Ambition and the Road Ahead With expansion planned across Europe and ambitions beyond, what must Cloover get right over the next 24 months to become the global backbone for decentralized energy ? To set the course for global leadership, we must focus on three core areas: Excellent Execution in Geographic Scaling: This requires meticulously managing our expansion into new markets like France, Italy, and the UK . We must prove our platform can adapt to local regulations and needs while maintaining core efficiency. A “one-size-fits-all” approach will not work. Strategic Deepening of the Platform: We must continue to advance our core AI capabilities in underwriting, risk management, and energy optimization. The “AI Finance Co-Pilot” must become an indispensable tool for every installer . Furthermore, expanding post-installation services like EMS and VPP integration is crucial for maximizing long-term value. Aggressive Expansion of the Ecosystem: This involves deepening partnerships with manufacturers, broadening our base of institutional investors, and relentlessly strengthening the network effects that create a powerful moat against competitors. As our investor from MMC Ventures noted, our success has been defined by “execution” . Maintaining that focus on execution across these three areas will be the key to establishing Cloover as the global backbone for decentralized energy. ---- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3554/fourth-industrial-revolution-at-sea-why-technology-adoption-is-real-test-for-sustainable-fisheries.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3554/fourth-industrial-revolution-at-sea-why-technology-adoption-is-real-test-for-sustainable-fisheries.html Thu, 29 Jan 2026 09:29:27 +0530 SAFET Executive Director Inga Wise explains how proven ocean technologies, if adopted at scale and tailored to local contexts, could mark a tipping point for sustainable ocean management under the UN Ocean Decade At the midpoint of the UN Ocean Decade, progress toward sustainable fisheries remains uneven—not because of a single missing piece, but due to the need for context-specific combinations of technologies, adoption pathways, and incentives, a challenge SAFET addresses through its SEA-TECH-IN-MOTION mapping tool. In an exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Inga Wise, Executive Director of SAFET, describes the current moment as a “Fourth Industrial Revolution at Sea,” marked by the availability of proven technologies and a critical shift from pilots to real-world adoption. Inga notes that tools such as satellite surveillance, AI-driven behavioral analysis, and in-situ sensors are already demonstrating impact against IUU fishing, though broader deployment is still constrained by structural, economic, and governance barriers. Ultimately, she emphasizes that SAFET’s role is not to dictate priorities or metrics, but to enable informed decision-making by showing how technology can support measurable progress toward established global frameworks like the UN Sustainable Development Goals, particularly SDG 14. At the midpoint of the UN Ocean Decade, progress appears uneven. From SAFET’s vantage point, where is the gap largest today—technology availability, adoption by industry, regulatory alignment, or political will—and what evidence most clearly supports that assessment? From SAFET’s perspective, there is no single gap that, if overcome, will unblock progress. Every context is different, and each situation requires a different solution or combination of technologies to be successful. This is why SAFET’s SEA-TECH-IN-MOTION map exists, to highlight as broad a cross section of solutions in different contexts as possible to enable implementers to find the most relevant parallels to their situation to learn from.  Your report frames this moment as a “Fourth Industrial Revolution at Sea.” What differentiates this technological wave from earlier digitization efforts in fisheries, and why should decision-makers believe this time will deliver systemic change rather than incremental improvements? Whilst the Fourth Industrial Revolution at sea has been building for some time with technologies being developed and tested in various situations, we are now approaching a critical point where there are sufficient proven technologies available and the focus now needs to shift to support regarding adoption. By highlighting where technologies have been most successfully used, SAFET aims to enable faster adoption and reduce the need to reinvent the wheel. Giving potential adopters of solutions examples that relate to their challenges and pathways that relate to their goals enables informed choices that are right for their requirement. Illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing remains stubbornly pervasive. Which technologies highlighted in the report have demonstrated the strongest real-world impact against IUU fishing, and what structural barriers still prevent their wider deployment? There are a wide range of technologies now in use that have been proven effective against IUU fishing, including satellite surveillance, AI behavioural analysis, in-situ sensors, and many more. To date, many deployments have been of a pilot nature. We are now seeing a more widespread adoption, which in turn will reduce opportunities for IUU catch to enter the supply chain.  SEA-TECH-IN-MOTION emphasizes real-world case studies over theoretical promise. In reviewing deployments globally, what patterns separate successful implementations from those that underperform or stall—and what lessons should governments and industry leaders draw before investing? One of the main lessons we have seen is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution.  Each context and challenge area is different and what worked for a technology deployment in one situation may not work in another. Hence, with our new tool, SEA-TECH-IN-MOTION, we provide filters where the viewer can choose desired outcome, species, geographic location, and more to find projects that relate to their needs.  Consumer trust and traceability are central themes, yet mislabeling rates remain high. Is the challenge primarily technological, economic, or cultural within supply chains—and how realistic is full transparency at scale by 2030? The factors contributing to mislabelling vary across seafood supply chains, which are often complex and fragmented. As a result, the challenge is not confined to a single dimension, but reflects an interaction between technological, economic, and cultural elements.Technology can significantly improve traceability by reducing manual data entry, improving data accuracy, and enabling better data sharing across supply chain segments, but it is not sufficient on its own. Its impact depends on consistent use, data quality, and alignment across diverse actors. At the same time, economic and cultural factors — such as incentives, governance, and standardised data sharing practices — shape how effectively technology is integrated into daily operations. Looking to 2030, full transparency at scale represents an ambitious objective, with progress likely to depend on continued alignment across technological, economic, and cultural factors. Sustainability goals often collide with short-term commercial pressures. How can SAFET’s work help align economic incentives for fishers and seafood companies with long-term ecosystem health, particularly in developing coastal economies? We approach this primarily as an independent, information-sharing role rather than as an implementer. Our work focuses on raising awareness of solutions that contribute to broader sustainability goals and on improving understanding of what tools and approaches are available, how they can be adopted, and where they may be most relevant. By bringing together this information in one place, we aim to make it easier for fisheries, seafood companies, and other industry stakeholders to explore options that align operational needs with sustainability concerns. In many cases, it is already clear that some kind of technology solution is required, but it can be difficult to navigate the various options and understand how a given solution relates to the outcomes required. Our work aims to help clarify those options and outcomes, so those seeking solutions can make informed decisions that fit their local context and commercial realities.   The report highlights more than 10 enabling technologies. If forced to prioritize, which two or three technologies should receive immediate global focus—and which widely discussed solutions do you believe are currently overhyped? As an independent organisation, SAFET’s goal is not to prioritise but to provide the information about where and when these technologies have been successfully deployed to support sustainability initiatives. Given that every situation is different, it is more important that implementers have access to the information we gather to find technologies relevant to their own initiatives and make decisions accordingly.  Looking ahead to 2030 and beyond, success will be judged by outcomes, not intent. What specific, measurable changes would convince you that the seafood and fisheries sector has truly crossed a tipping point toward sustainable ocean management? This is a good question, but we would be cautious about defining specific metrics ourselves. Progress toward sustainable ocean management is already framed through established, measurable indicators, particularly those set out under the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, including SDG 14.  The role of SAFET is not to define success, but to highlight how different technologies can contribute to demonstrable progress against these shared frameworks as more implementation examples emerge.  ---- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3544/agriculture-isnt-just-load-its-grid-infrastructure.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3544/agriculture-isnt-just-load-its-grid-infrastructure.html Fri, 23 Jan 2026 09:21:31 +0530 How agricultural load flexibility can compete with peaker plants, batteries, and grid upgrades—at a fraction of the cost Agricultural flexibility isn’t a temporary workaround—it’s a permanent pillar of the future grid. As renewables increase and variability becomes the norm, the grid needs distributed, dispatchable flexibility everywhere, and farms are uniquely positioned to provide it. Yield’s roadmap expands beyond irrigation into a broader portfolio of farm DERs, orchestrated like a virtual power plant. In an exclusive Agrospectrum interview, Tyler Nuss, CEO of Yield Energy, explains why farmers aren’t just energy users—they’re infrastructure partners in the energy transition. Agriculture as Grid Infrastructure You describe agriculture as a new class of grid resource. What would need to change in utility planning, market rules, or regulatory frameworks for agricultural load flexibility to be treated on par with traditional infrastructure like peaker plants or batteries? Utilities need to formally recognize flexible load as capacity—not just generation. That means valuing demand-side resources based on performance, predictability, and response speed rather than asset type. Agriculture already represents large, concentrated loads—irrigation alone accounts for roughly 1 per cent of U.S. electricity use. With the right market rules, those loads can deliver grid services faster and at far lower cost than building new infrastructure. What’s changing now is visibility and control. Platforms like Yield Edge DERMS make agricultural flexibility measurable, dispatchable, and verifiable, allowing it to be planned and relied on just like peaker plants or batteries. Reliability vs. Variability Risk Farming operations are inherently seasonal and weather-dependent. How do you ensure the reliability and predictability of agricultural load as a grid resource, particularly during extreme weather events when the grid is most stressed? Reliability comes from program design and automation that respect farm operations. Farmers only enroll in programs that work for their crop, season, and geography, and participation is automated through equipment they already use. The results speak for themselves: across thousands of enrolled devices, Yield has delivered an average of 100 per cent performance in demand response dispatches and demonstrated 67 per cent load-shift potential during peak hours. Extreme weather is exactly when flexible load is most valuable. Our platform coordinates assets so utilities get predictable response, while growers retain full control of which programs they opt-in to. Scalability Beyond California California has unique regulatory incentives and grid conditions. What barriers—technical, regulatory, or economic—do you anticipate when scaling this model nationally or internationally, and how central is policy alignment to your growth strategy? California is a leading market, but the underlying drivers—load growth, electrification, and the need for fast, cost-effective capacity—are global. The biggest barriers are regulatory recognition and program availability, not technology. Yield Edge is hardware-agnostic and built to integrate with existing farm automation systems, which allows us to scale quickly wherever utilities are ready to engage agriculture. Policy alignment accelerates adoption, but our strategy is focused on proving performance. When utilities see consistent results, programs follow. Comparative Economics of Flexibility You position agricultural load flexibility as cheaper and faster than new storage or grid upgrades. How do the economics compare on a per-megawatt basis over time, especially once transaction, integration, and farmer participation costs are fully accounted for? Agricultural flexibility avoids the largest cost drivers of traditional infrastructure: long development timelines and capital-intensive buildouts. Because Yield integrates with equipment farmers already own, deployment costs are low and timelines are measured in months, not years. Utilities gain capacity at a fraction of the cost of new generation or transmission, while growers earn $20–30k annually through demand response or save 10–20 per cent on energy bills through dynamic rates. That combination—low cost, fast deployment, and dual-sided value—is what makes agricultural flexibility economically compelling over time. Farmer Incentives and Risk Allocation How are operational and financial risks shared between Yield Energy, utilities, and growers—particularly if grid dispatch conflicts with critical farm activities or if utility programs change over time? Growers are always in control. Participation is voluntary, program-based, and aligned with operational realities. We don’t enroll farmers in programs that could disrupt their operations. Yield handles program design, enrollment, and performance management, while utilities pay for flexible capacity via our DERMS platform. If a grower needs to opt out due to operational constraints, they can do so. This structure ensures risk is shared appropriately and that growers benefit financially without taking on undue operational risk. Data, Control, and Cybersecurity As you aggregate and control thousands of on-farm devices, how do you address concerns around data ownership, cybersecurity, and operational control—especially for growers wary of external interference in farm systems? We’re very deliberate about this: growers own their data, we don’t sell it, and only the minimum required information is shared for program participation and verification. The platform is built with strong cybersecurity controls, secure integrations with trusted AgTech partners, and continuous monitoring. Most importantly, growers define the operating guardrails and always retain override control—if anything is uncertain, the system defaults back to normal farm operations. Market Design and Equity Do you see a risk that flexibility markets disproportionately reward large, capital-intensive farms while leaving smaller growers behind, and how does Yield Energy design its platform to ensure broad participation across farm sizes? Agriculture’s strength lies in aggregation. Yield enables farms of all sizes to participate by pooling flexible load into unified resources that meet utility thresholds. Because participation leverages existing equipment, smaller growers can access the same programs without new capital investment. Our goal is to make flexibility revenue and savings accessible across the agricultural spectrum—not just to the largest operations. Long-Term Grid Transition Is agricultural flexibility a transitional solution to bridge current grid constraints, or do you see it as a permanent pillar of a decarbonized grid—and how does that vision influence your product roadmap and partnerships? Agricultural flexibility isn’t a stopgap—it’s a permanent pillar of the future grid. As renewables grow and electrification accelerates, the grid needs fast, distributed, dispatchable flexibility everywhere, and agriculture is one of the largest and most controllable load categories that can provide it through VPP-style orchestration without disrupting operations. That belief drives our roadmap to expand beyond irrigation into a broader farm DER portfolio (cold storage, charging, solar, batteries, generation) and to deepen hardware-agnostic partnerships with AgTech automation platforms so growers can participate seamlessly at scale. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3522/from-estate-to-algorithm-how-canopy-is-turning-coffee-farms-into-climate-ready-intelligence-systems.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3522/from-estate-to-algorithm-how-canopy-is-turning-coffee-farms-into-climate-ready-intelligence-systems.html Tue, 13 Jan 2026 12:15:10 +0530 A second-generation planter and AI researcher explains how lived plantation wisdom, satellite intelligence, and public–private collaboration are reshaping Indian coffee from the ground up In an exclusive interview with Agrospectrum, Sooraj Kandathil Babu, Founder & CEO of NeuBiom Labs and a second-generation coffee planter with a deep research background in AI, explains how lived estate experience shaped Canopy, a satellite- and AI-driven crop intelligence platform built for real plantation decisions. He discusses how Canopy converts traditional field intuition into digital twins that strengthen climate resilience, improve quality consistency, and enable traceability and collective bargaining for growers and FPOs. The conversation also highlights why affordable deep tech, public–private collaboration, and long-term data partnerships are essential to stabilising incomes and future-proofing Indian coffee amid increasing climate volatility. From Estate to Algorithm You are a second-generation coffee planter building a deep-tech platform rooted in satellite intelligence and AI. What specific pain points from your own plantation experience shaped Canopy’s architecture, and how did you translate traditional field intuition into a scalable digital “crop intelligence” model ? Most people experience coffee only as a finished product, something ordered at a café or picked off a supermarket shelf. What remains largely invisible is the one-year crop cycle that shapes that cup. When you spend time on plantations, the contrast becomes stark. I have seen two adjacent estates, with similar soil and climate, produce vastly different outcomes, one yielding 15 bags per acre, the other nearly double. The difference is rarely geography; it is almost always practice. How growers observe their farms, when they intervene, and how consistently they follow scientific cultivation principles. That gap in outcomes was the first pain point that shaped Canopy’s architecture. Traditional plantation wisdom is rich, but it is often unrecorded. We began by digitising this intuition through what we call a plantation journal, a structured cultivation diary that captures day-to-day farm activities. These records are then analysed alongside local weather patterns and satellite-derived plantation health indicators, allowing us to correlate practices with outcomes and provide context-specific advisories rather than generic recommendations. The second challenge is climate resilience. Coffee is a climate-sensitive crop grown predominantly in regions already exposed to significant climate risk. Multiple studies indicate that many current coffee-growing regions could become unsuitable by 2050 if cultivation practices remain unchanged. This makes climate-resilient growing not optional, but essential. Canopy maps how each grower approaches cultivation and aligns those practices with globally recognised sustainable frameworks, translating abstract climate principles into actionable, plot-level guidance. Quality and market value form the third pillar. Our goal is not to turn every grower into a specialty coffee producer overnight, but to enable clusters of growers to achieve uniform, reliable quality over time. Through Farmer Producer Organisations (FPOs), a standardised package of practices can be deployed across hundreds of farms, improving outturn, grading consistency, and ultimately bargaining power in trade. Canopy supports this with transparent, traceable data that builds credibility across the value chain. Finally, there is technology adoption itself. Agriculture has long lagged behind other sectors in leveraging data and digital tools, despite being one of the most foundational industries. We believe technology, when applied sensibly and with a low barrier to entry, can only strengthen farming systems. Data-driven agriculture has proven its value globally; our focus is on adapting it to Indian conditions, starting with coffee, and earning trust gradually as growers see tangible benefits on their land. Canopy is, at its core, an attempt to translate field-level intuition into scalable crop intelligence, bridging the gap between estate wisdom and algorithmic insight, while keeping the grower firmly at the centre of the system. To add to that, both the founders of NeuBiom Labs come from a strong research background in artificial intelligence and user-centered engineering. My co-founder, Dr. Sooraj Krishna, holds a PhD in AI from Sorbonne University in France, and I am in the final stages of completing my PhD in AI at the University of Würzburg in Germany. In many ways, NeuBiom Labs is the outcome of applying rigorous academic research to the foundational problems we encounter every day on the ground, bridging deep science with real-world agricultural challenges. The Digital Twin Question Canopy creates a “digital twin” of each coffee plot. For growers and industry stakeholders, what decisions become materially better with this digital twin, yield forecasting, pest management, climate risk, or input optimisation, and where have you seen the strongest early impact? The real value of a digital twin is not in any single metric, but in how it improves decision-making across the crop cycle. For growers, Canopy’s digital twin functions as a living health report of each plot. It brings together local weather patterns, satellite-derived vegetative indices, soil indicators, and on-ground cultivation practices into a single, coherent view of plantation health. This allows growers to clearly understand what is affecting their crop and where intervention is needed. Based on this, the system recommends context-specific practices and provides short-term weather forecasts that help growers time their operations more effectively. For FPOs and grower collectives, the digital twin operates at a different scale. Instead of managing farms in isolation, FPOs gain a portfolio-level view of member plantations through comparable health and activity scores. This makes it possible to benchmark performance across growers, identify gaps early, and align field activities with organisational goals. For example, an FPO aiming to promote organic or low-input cultivation can push standardised practices across its members and monitor adoption over time. This structured approach significantly improves consistency in quality and outturn, which directly strengthens collective bargaining power in the market. At this stage, our strongest early impact has been in plantation visibility, practice standardisation, and operational planning for growers and FPOs. Coffee’s annual crop cycle means that advanced outcomes such as yield forecasting, early disease detection, and precise input optimisation require longitudinal data. As we complete full-cycle datasets across a growing number of plantations, these capabilities naturally become more robust and predictive. Ultimately, the digital twin evolves from a monitoring tool into a decision-confidence layer, supporting not just growers and FPOs, but also future stakeholders across trade, finance, and compliance, once the system is grounded in real, season-long plantation intelligence. Affordable Deep Tech: The Rs 2,999 Disruption Enterprise-grade crop intelligence globally is often priced far beyond the reach of smallholders. How did NeuBiom Labs engineer a platform that delivers satellite, AI and hyperlocal insights at Rs 2,999 per crop cycle without compromising data accuracy or depth? Affordability was not an afterthought for us; it was a design constraint from day one. If we want meaningful outcomes such as early disease detection or reliable yield forecasting, the system has to achieve wide-scale adoption. That simply isn’t possible if enterprise-grade crop intelligence remains priced beyond the reach of small and mid-sized growers. A large part of how we achieve this is through ecosystem leverage. NeuBiom Labs is incubated at the Atal Incubation Center at the Coffee Board of India, and the Agri Business Incubator at Kerala Agriculture University, and we are also part of the Google for Startups India. These institutions provide critical support in the form of infrastructure, cloud credits, research access, and grants, which allow us to subsidise costs during the adoption phase without compromising on data quality or analytical depth. Equally important is how we’ve engineered the platform itself. We made a conscious decision not to over-engineer the stack. Instead of building complex, expensive systems that look impressive on paper, we focused on crisp, purpose-driven tools that directly serve agronomic decision-making. This keeps compute costs low, workflows efficient, and insights actionable, ensuring the stakeholders pay only for value they can actually use. User-centred engineering is the third pillar. Over the past year, we co-developed Canopy alongside 23 progressive coffee growers, spending extensive time on plantations to understand how decisions are made in real conditions. This helped us strip away unnecessary complexity and design interfaces and insights that align with how growers think and operate, rather than forcing them to adapt to technology. Ultimately, the Rs 2,999 pricing is not about undercutting the market, it’s about building trust and momentum. Once growers experience the tangible benefits of data-driven cultivation, we see compounding impact: better practices, improved quality and yield, richer datasets, and increasingly powerful intelligence across seasons. That virtuous cycle is what allows deep tech to remain both affordable and scalable in Indian agriculture. Climate Volatility and Coffee’s New Risk Curve Indian coffee faces increasing stress from erratic rainfall, temperature spikes and pest outbreaks. How does Canopy move beyond reactive advisories to predictive risk management, and can it realistically stabilise incomes for small and marginal coffee growers? True, climate volatility has fundamentally altered the risk curve for coffee in India. Erratic rainfall, temperature spikes, and shifting pest dynamics are no longer exceptions, they are the new normal. Yet, despite these changes, a large proportion of small and marginal growers continue to rely on traditional calendars and inherited practices that were designed for a far more stable climate. Canopy moves beyond reactive advisories by anchoring decision-making in context. Each plantation is geo-tagged, allowing advisories to be localised rather than regional averages. More importantly, like we discussed before, the system continuously maps the grower’s cultivation practices through a structured plantation journal and correlates these actions with evolving local weather patterns and plantation health indicators. Advisories are generated not just based on “what the weather is,” but on how the grower is farming under those conditions. This is where predictive risk management begins. Instead of responding after damage occurs, growers start to see patterns, how certain practices amplify climate stress, while others buffer against it. Our systems are trained on authenticated and certified coffee cultivation practices relevant to Indian conditions, ensuring that recommendations are agronomically sound and locally applicable. The impact is not instantaneous. Climate resilience is built over a crop cycle, not in a single intervention. But as growers become more aware of ground realities and begin making data-driven decisions, timing operations better, adjusting inputs, and avoiding unnecessary stress on the plant, we see measurable improvements in crop health, consistency, and outturn. Over time, this translates into better quality and more predictable volumes, which directly strengthens growers’ bargaining power. Income stabilisation, especially for smallholders, becomes far more realistic when this approach is adopted at scale, ideally through FPOs or farmer collectives. At the collective level, risk is no longer borne by isolated individuals. Uniform practices, shared intelligence, and aggregated quality enable more stable market positioning, even in volatile climatic conditions. NeuBiom Labs or Canopy does not claim to eliminate climate risk. What it does is convert uncertainty into informed action, helping growers shift from reactive survival to proactive resilience, one crop cycle at a time. From Farm to Federation: Scaling Beyond the Plot Farmer Producer Organisations, cooperatives and boards need aggregated intelligence, not just farm-level dashboards. How does Canopy translate dispersed plot-level data into decision-grade insights for institutions managing thousands of growers across regions? We see this challenge very clearly, and addressing it is central not just to Canopy, but to the broader mission of NeuBiom Labs. If you look at a region like Wayanad alone, there are over 60,000 coffee growers. Yet how they cultivate, the practices they follow, the health of their plantations, and their evolving responses to climate stress remain largely undocumented and fragmented. This makes coordinated intervention at an institutional level extremely difficult. As a side note, this also means, the traditional and indigenous knowledge our seniors developed with their years of experience on the ground are undocumented. These insights exist largely in memory and practice, not in records. If this knowledge is not captured now, an entire generation of experiential wisdom risks being lost. In parallel with building Canopy, we are consciously working to document and structure this lived knowledge, so future growers have a foundation to build on rather than starting from scratch. Canopy is intentionally designed as a layered intelligence stack, not just a farm dashboard. The mobile app and institutional dashboard are only the visible interfaces. Beneath them sits a core AI layer that includes domain-specific GIS inference engines and a language model fine-tuned exclusively for coffee cultivation. This layer synthesises dispersed plot-level data, activities, health indicators, weather exposure, and spatial patterns, into structured, comparable signals. As adoption scales, this enables institutions such as FPOs, cooperatives, and boards to move from anecdotal understanding to evidence-backed decision-making. Instead of asking what is happening, they can ask why it is happening, where intervention will have the highest impact, and which practices consistently produce better outcomes. This allows for region-wise benchmarking, optimisation of input distribution, targeted extension efforts, and early identification of systemic risks affecting quality or yield. More importantly, this intelligence operates upstream. Institutions can intervene at the practice level, well before harvest, by pushing standardised packages, adjusting advisory focus, or aligning growers toward specific quality or sustainability goals. Over time, this can raise average yield per region, improve uniformity of produce, and significantly strengthen market positioning. What Canopy offers today is the foundation, bringing stakeholders into a shared, data-driven framework for farming. The stack is deliberately built to evolve. As datasets mature across full crop cycles and adoption deepens, the intelligence shifts from descriptive to predictive, and from operational support to strategic planning. In that sense, scaling beyond the plot is not an add-on feature; it is the natural outcome of designing agriculture as a system rather than a collection of isolated farms. Traceability as a Trade Weapon With Europe and other premium markets tightening sustainability, deforestation and origin norms, traceability is fast becoming non-negotiable. How does Canopy’s end-to-end tracking position Indian coffee against competitors like Brazil, Vietnam and Colombia in compliance-heavy global markets? India is currently classified as a low-risk origin under emerging regulations such as the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR). However, low risk does not automatically translate into market access, especially in premium and compliance-heavy export markets that are increasingly dominated by large, vertically integrated players. For India’s predominantly smallholder-driven coffee sector, traceability becomes the key enabler to participate on equal footing. Canopy positions traceability not as a post-harvest paperwork exercise, but as a cultivation-first system. Wide adoption of the Canopy stack allows FPOs to standardise coffee cultivation practices across hundreds of small growers, while ensuring farm-level quality control and transparent activity records. This creates verifiable evidence of how coffee is grown, not just where it comes from. From a global trade perspective, this is critical. Competing origins like Brazil, Vietnam, and Colombia benefit from scale, mechanisation, and consolidated supply chains. India’s strength lies elsewhere, in shade-grown systems, biodiversity-friendly cultivation, and smallholder domination. Canopy translates these inherent advantages into structured, auditable data that buyers and regulators can trust. By maintaining traceable records from plot-level practices through harvest, the platform will soon support compliance with EUDR and other sustainability frameworks, while simultaneously building credibility for certifications and responsible sourcing claims. Over time, this shifts Indian coffee from being viewed as a fragmented supply to a verified, institutionally backed origin, capable of commanding premium pricing rather than competing purely on volume. As the Canopy ecosystem matures, its stakeholders naturally expand, from growers and FPOs to exporters, buyers, financiers, and compliance bodies, each drawing value from the same shared source of truth. In that sense, traceability becomes more than a regulatory requirement; it becomes a strategic trade instrument that allows Indian coffee to compete, differentiate, and negotiate from a position of strength in global markets. Public–Private Synergy in Agri-Tech Canopy’s launch at the CCRI centenary, with backing from the Coffee Board, AIC-CCRI and global ecosystem partners, signals a rare convergence of science, policy and start-ups. What role should public institutions play in accelerating the adoption of crop intelligence platforms at scale? The support we’ve received so far has been exceptional and deeply collaborative. Institutions such as Kerala Startup Mission, the Agri Business Incubator at Kerala Agricultural University, the Atal Incubation Center at the Coffee Board, Google for Startups, Wadhwani Foundation, EarthOn Foundation, our academic institutions, and, most importantly, the growers and FPOs we work with, have all contributed meaningfully to Canopy’s evolution. This convergence of policy, science, and entrepreneurship is exactly what agriculture needs at this moment. At a broader level, public institutions play a pivotal role in accelerating adoption of crop intelligence platforms by acting as trusted intermediaries. For most farmers, especially smallholders, technology adoption is not just a cost decision, it is a trust decision. When awareness and capacity-building programmes are led or endorsed by public institutions, it significantly reduces hesitation and shortens adoption cycles. Messaging around why data-driven cultivation matters, both in the short term for productivity and in the long term for climate resilience and market access, carries far greater credibility when it comes from institutional voices. Beyond awareness, public institutions can act as scale catalysts. Financial support in the form of grants, pilot subsidies, or outcome-linked incentives for using intelligent farming systems can dramatically accelerate adoption without burdening growers. This is particularly important in early phases, where benefits accrue over a crop cycle rather than immediately. Central bodies such as the Coffee Board of India and regional agricultural research centres can also serve as nodal intelligence hubs. By aggregating anonymised, region-level insights from platforms like Canopy, they can monitor ground-level deltas, identify systemic risks, refine extension strategies, and feed real-world data back into policy and research. Ultimately, public institutions don’t need to build technology themselves, but they can create the conditions for it to scale responsibly. By combining trust, standard-setting, financial support, and feedback mechanisms, they can ensure that crop intelligence platforms move from isolated pilots to national agricultural infrastructure. The Long View: Canopy Beyond Coffee Is Canopy a coffee-specific solution, or the foundation of a broader plantation intelligence stack? Over the next five years, how do you envision NeuBiom Labs evolving, across crops, geographies, or even into climate-linked finance and sustainability certification ecosystems? Today, Canopy is intentionally coffee-specific. Coffee is a climate-sensitive, globally traded crop with a long production cycle and complex stakeholder dynamics, which makes it an ideal starting point. But structurally, Canopy is designed as the foundation of a broader plantation intelligence stack, particularly for climate-sensitive cash crops where resilience, quality consistency, and traceability are becoming non-negotiable. For us, technology is not the end goal; it is the accelerator. The real determinant of success lies in operations, how deeply and effectively we work with growers, FPOs, and institutional stakeholders on the ground. Agriculture does not lend itself well to a simple “build-and-sell” software model. Our belief is that meaningful outcomes emerge only when platforms like Canopy are deployed as long-term partnerships, where data, practices, and incentives evolve together over time. Over the next five years, we see NeuBiom Labs expanding along three clear dimensions. First is geographic expansion, moving from regional depth to multi-region intelligence, where patterns and risks can be understood at landscape and corridor levels rather than isolated farms. Second is crop expansion, applying the same intelligence framework to other climate-sensitive plantation crops that share similar characteristics: long gestation periods, smallholder dominance, and exposure to climate and market volatility. The third dimension is ecosystem integration. As datasets mature across crop cycles, Canopy naturally becomes relevant to adjacent systems, climate-linked finance, sustainability certification, compliance reporting, and institutional risk assessment. When cultivation data is reliable, longitudinal, and traceable, it reduces uncertainty not just for growers, but also for buyers, lenders, insurers, and policymakers. In that sense, Canopy’s long view is not about becoming a one-size-fits-all platform, but about enabling a shared, data-driven workflow across agriculture. As stakeholders evolve, the stack evolves with them, ensuring that value is created collectively, and that the benefits of intelligence compound across the entire agricultural ecosystem. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3509/from-additives-to-spices-cac48-redraws-rules-of-global-food-trade.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3509/from-additives-to-spices-cac48-redraws-rules-of-global-food-trade.html Thu, 08 Jan 2026 11:50:16 +0530 Codex and FAO officials detail how updated standards aim to protect consumers without triggering disproportionate trade disruption for export-dependent economies In an exclusive Agrospectrum and NUFFOODS Spectrum interview with global food-standards leaders — Sarah Cahill, Codex Secretary; Lingping Zhang, Food Standards Officer, Codex Secretariat; Markus Lipp, Senior Food Safety Officer, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); Gracia Brisco, Food Standards Officer, Codex Secretariat; and Hilde Kruse, Senior Food Standards Officer, Codex Secretariat — CAC48 emerges as a decisive moment for Codex amid rising geopolitical fragmentation. The experts reaffirm Codex’s science-based, consensus-driven mandate, which shaped major reforms including additive reviews, aflatoxin updates, pesticide-residue reference guidelines and new maximum lead levels for spices. They underline how improved Codes of Practice, surveillance support and harmonised quality parameters enable consumer protection while minimising trade disruption for export-reliant economies. Looking ahead, they highlight the Codex Strategic Plan 2026–2031, which places digital traceability, climate-risk foresight, and advanced analytical technologies at the core of modernising global food safety governance. Edited excerpts; Codex at a Geopolitical Crossroads The 48th Session saw critical standards adopted across additives, contaminants, and fresh-produce quality. At a time when food systems face geopolitical fragmentation, supply-chain shocks, and rising protectionism, how does Codex ensure these standards remain science-led, globally harmonized, and insulated from political pressure? The Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) is a Member-driven body with its commitment to a science-based approach to standard setting enshrined in its procedures. Its work is guided by its strategic goals, and its core values of collaboration, inclusiveness, consensus building and transparency. Codex texts are the benchmark for food safety under the World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) and are relevant to the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement) where WTO members refer to harmonization with international standards such as the Codex Alimentarius for food-related issues such as labelling. Codex standards play an important role in addressing specific trade concerns or for dispute settlement cases. Wherever you are, whatever you do, safe food is an everyday need. And it is a global commodity. These aspects are integral to every discussion in the Codex Alimentarius Commission. “Together” was also the theme of CAC48, which served to highlight that when it comes to food safety and quality it is only by working together that we can effectively and efficiently ensure food is safe and of good quality.  The GSFA Overhaul: Science, Safety, and Consumer Trust More than 500 food additive provisions were reviewed, leading to revocations and new inclusions. What principles guided the reassessment—particularly for colourants like annatto extracts—and how does FAO ensure regulators and industry transition smoothly to these updated provisions without disrupting product availability or trade flows? All Codex work is conducted following approval by CAC. Thus, the decision for reassessment was taken by Members. In the case of annatto extracts, this decision was based on: The need to align the General standard for food additives with relevant sections of commodity standards. In this case, for example, there was a need to align with the Standard for fermented milks, which does not provide for the addition of annatto extracts in plain milk. Codex texts are developed through consensus by all its Members in a deliberate manner that often spans a timeframe of several years. The national Codex contact points serve as a primary node to disseminate all applicable information to national stakeholders. In addition, FAO provides support when requested by Member Countries to strengthen national Codex structures, thereby enhancing national capabilities in disseminating all relevant Codex texts to national stakeholders. Aflatoxins in Peanuts: New Science, New Responsibilities The revised Code of Practice on aflatoxins integrates updated agronomic science, maturity-stage tables, and roasting effects. How will FAO help producing countries—especially smallholder-dependent economies—translate these best practices into field-level change? Are new surveillance, extension, or capacity-building mechanisms planned? FAO stays ready to support its members needs and will respond to requests by its members for additional capacity building measures correspondingly. FAO and Codex furthermore have published numerous guidance documents, codes of practice and related texts that is publicly available, ready to be used by any other organization that would like to use this information in order to support producers of peanuts. Lead Limits in Spices: Balancing Public Health and Trade facilitation With new maximum levels now set for dried bark (cinnamon) and culinary herbs, exporting nations such as —India, Sri Lanka, Vietnam, Indonesia—face compliance pressure. How does Codex balance the dual mandate of protecting consumers health while ensuring fair practices in trade, in this case, preventing trade disruptions for economies reliant on spice exports? The mandate to protect consumer health and ensure fair practices in the food trade is the statutory purpose of CAC. This means that, when it comes to food safety standards such as maximum levels for contaminants in foods, CAC will not establish more stringent measures than necessary to protect consumers health so that the measures themselves do not become a technical barrier to trade which may then translate in trade disruption that may impact economic growth and ultimately food security.   Although spices and culinary herbs are consumed in small amounts, as opposed to other foods, it remains important to assess the safety of lead levels in these foods due to the impact of lead toxicity on human health that may include neurodevelopmental effects such as decreases in Intelligence Quota (IQ) and attention span in children, impaired renal function, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, impaired fertility, and adverse pregnancy outcomes and therefore the ALARA continued to apply when CCCF discusses risk management considerations related to health and trade so that while ensuring the safety of the food, this does not imply high rejections rate of lot consignments, at import control point. CCCF does provide support to Codex Members to enable them to comply with MLs, by developing codes of practice, a compendium of risk management measures and practices to assist in reducing food contamination, in this case CAC40 adopted in 2017 the Code of practice for the prevention and reduction of mycotoxins in spices (CXC 78-2017). FAO does have a role to play in assisting countries with the implementation of the CoP, helping them to identify specific risk management measures that may not be included in the CoP, as they are usually overarching texts, that can complement the measures applicable worldwide that are described in these CoPs. The Codex Alimentarius Commission has now adopted MLs for lead in spices and culinary herbs, specifically, dried bark (cinnamon) and dried culinary herbs. The MLs are 2.5 mg/kg for lead in spices, dried bark and 2.0 mg/kg for lead in culinary herbs, dried and will now be added to the General Standard for contaminants and toxins in food and feed (CXS 193-1995).  Pesticide Reference Materials: A Quiet but Critical Reform The guidelines allowing extended use of pesticide reference materials beyond labelled expiry dates could significantly reduce laboratory costs and waste. What drove this reform? And how does FAO envision it strengthening residue monitoring systems in low- and middle-income countries where testing infrastructure remains limited? Pesticide residues in food are a subject of particular concern for consumers and in the food trade. To ensure the safety of food, the regulation of pesticide use, and relevant residues, must be enforced and guaranteed. Part of the process of testing for pesticide residues relies on laboratories being able to access what are known as reference materials, or RMs. But these are costly and sold with 2-to-5-year short-term expiry dates, though there is no requirement to find maximum shelf life. This can force laboratories to buy new RMs more frequently than potentially necessary. This leads to additional work and additional costs, and that can hinder how much testing can be done.  The Codex Alimentarius Commission has now adopted guidelines that provide a scientifically sound framework to monitor the purity and stability of reference materials under defined conditions, which, if implemented correctly, may allow continued use of RMs beyond their expiry date - where purity remains within acceptable limits. This reduces recurring costs, minimizes waste, and ensures confidence in the reliability of pesticide residue analysis.  The work on the development of guidelines for monitoring the purity and stability of reference materials of pesticides during prolonged storage commenced at CCPR51 in 2019, when some delegations expressed concerns regarding the limitation of the use of reference materials beyond the expiry date, leading to significant recurring costs for laboratories. As chair of the electronic working group (EWG), India led the work to develop these guidelines. FAO stays ready to support its members needs and will respond to requests by its members for additional capacity building measures correspondingly.  Read more about this work in the 2025 edition of the CODEX magazine   Standard for Fresh Dates: Trade Enablement for Climate-Stressed Regions The new standard comes after a decade of negotiations and is deeply important for date-producing regions across the Middle East and North Africa. How will harmonized quality parameters—size, colour, uniformity, defects—reshape global trade? Can such standards help climate-stressed producers secure better prices in high-value retail markets ? By adopting the new Standard for fresh dates, Codex Members now have an international reference that provides the baseline for international trade of this commodity upon which trading partners can agree on additional quality provisions based on their consumers’ preferences. For producing countries, this opens up trade possibilities across the globe, which, in many cases, will support the livelihoods of small producers, bolster economies and provide a safe, good quality product for consumers worldwide. Castilla Lulo (Naranjilla): Regional Standards as a Strategic Tool This new regional standard reflects the fruit’s cultural importance and emerging trade value in Latin America. What criteria does Codex use to decide when a product merits a regional rather than global standard? And do regional standards serve as testbeds for potential future global adoption? When considering new work proposed by FAO/WHO regional coordinating committees, CAC considers, amongst other things, whether the new work is justified on the grounds that the product in question is significantly traded intraregionally and that there is no significant trade between or within other regions When a commodity for which there is a regional standard, sees increased trade at a global level, the coordinating committee concerned, or a Member, can propose extension of the territorial application of the standard. This involves new work, which has to be approved by CAC. CAC48 approved, for example, new work on converting the Regional standard for laver products (Asia) to a worldwide standard, work that will be carried out by the Codex Committee on Fish and Fishery Products (CCFFP). The Next Frontier: Modernizing Codex for a New Era of Food Risks From AI-driven food systems to precision fermentation, novel ingredients, and climate-linked contaminants, food safety risks are evolving faster than many national regulatory systems. What are FAO’s top priorities for modernizing Codex over the next decade? How will future standards incorporate digital traceability, climate risk modelling, and new analytical technologies? FAO is a parent organization of Codex, together with the World Health Organization (WHO). However, work prioritization in Codex is the remit of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. CAC47 adopted the Codex strategic plan 2026–2031 and CAC48 its monitoring framework. The purpose of the Codex strategic plan and its renewal and renegotiation every five years is to ensure that Codex work is aimed at achieving the most appropriate objectives. FAO has a very long-standing tradition to inform the Codex Alimentarius Commission and its subsidiary bodies with all relevant information to facilitate forward looking workplanning. FAO continues to offer its support to all its members and the members of the Codex Alimentarius Commission to assist in national capacity building activities to strengthen food control systems, food safety governance and all related aspects. The new strategic plan has as its first Strategic Goal to: Respond to Members’ needs for protecting the health of consumers and ensuring fair practices in the food trade in an evolving global landscape, by developing science-based standards and related texts 1.1 Foresight and horizon-scanning activities are used to support the identification of issues likely to impact food safety, quality and trade. 1.2 Scientific advice that addresses the needs identified by CAC and its subsidiary bodies is primarily provided by FAO and WHO and their joint scientific advisory bodies, informed by globally representative data and appropriate international expertise and methodology. 1.3 Scientific advice is used by CAC and subsidiary bodies in line with Codex risk analysis principles. 1.4 Codex standards and related texts are developed, reviewed and adopted in a timely, transparent and inclusive manner. Thus, with reference to FAO’s foresight programme ( https://www.fao.org/food-safety/scientific-advice/foresight/en/ ), Codex will aim to keep ahead of emerging trends Codex work is already addressing some of the key emerging issues and adapting based on Members’ priorities: Digital traceability is already a key topic of discussion in the Codex Committee on Food Import and Export Inspection and Certification Systems (CCFICS), and work is ongoing to develop texts for the digitalization of national food control systems. CAC47 adopted the Codex Committee on Food Labelling’s (CCFL’s) Guidelines on the provision of food information for pre-packaged foods to be offered via e-commerce New food sources and production systems have been discussed extensively in Codex in recent years. In this context several areas of new work are under discussion which will help define how codex addresses this emerging area moving forward. Changing climate is also impacting food safety and this is also impacting the standard setting work of Codex. For example, the Codex Committee on Contaminants in Food (CCCF) elaborated and CAC47 adopted the Code of practice for the prevention or reduction of ciguatera poisoning, in response to the evolving nature of this issue, which is related to climate factors. The Codex Committee on Food Hygiene developed and CAC46 adopted Guidelines for the safe use and reuse of water in food production and processing in response to Members concerns about the need to ensure that in the context of water resource challenges, the safety of food was not negatively impacted. There is a continued emphasis, particularly within CCCF, on the issue of mycotoxins, the threat of which is evolving and possibly expanding as climate factors change. —---- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3504/union-budget-2026-expectations.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3504/union-budget-2026-expectations.html Wed, 07 Jan 2026 13:40:55 +0530 Resilience, efficiency & prosperity As Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman unveils Budget 2026, the nation demands more than routine allocations. Indian agriculture is at a historic inflection point. This Budget is expected to operationalise the Viksit Bharat 2047 vision, aiming to transform farming from a low-margin, input-heavy, staple-focused sector into a high-productivity, high-value, globally competitive engine. Economists, industry leaders, and multilateral agencies concur: Incremental tweaks have run out of runway, and structural reforms are imperative to bridge productivity gaps, restore soil and water health, and secure farmers’ livelihoods. “Budget 2026 must signal a decisive move from blanket input subsidies to outcome-linked support that rewards water-use efficiency, balanced fertilisation, and low-emission practices at the farm level,” asserts Prof. Ramesh Chand, Member (Agriculture), NITI Aayog.  Dr Ashok Gulati, Infosys Chair Professor for Agriculture at the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER)and former Chairman, Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP), echoes the call for digitally verifiable, efficiency-led support: “Linking direct benefit transfers with soil health cards, precision nutrient management, and diversified cropping will reduce fiscal stress while lifting total factor productivity across both rainfed and irrigated systems.” The imperative is clear: Budget 2026 must transition from fragmented schemes to a coherent, science-led, productivity-centric agricultural strategy — a structural foundation for a globally competitive, climate-smart, and high-income Indian agriculture. The Foundation of 2025: From Intent to Implementation Budget 2025 laid important groundwork, signaling a shift from stop-gap support toward structural measures aimed at productivity and resilience. The launch of the Prime Minister Dhan-Dhaanya Krishi Yojana, targeting 100 low-productivity districts, marked the start of district-level agricultural renewal. Coupled with a six-year protein security initiative under the Mission for Aatmanirbharta in Pulses, it created stable procurement for tur, urad, and masoor, reducing India’s import dependence in key pulses. “Budget 2026 must accelerate India’s shift to a climate-resilient, value-enhanced agri-economy by scaling biologicals and unlocking the waste-to-wealth opportunity. Targeted fiscal support for biosolutions, soil health and circularity can boost productivity while reducing chemical dependence. ’’ — Krishna Mohan Puvvada, Regional President, (Middle East, India and Africa), Novonesis Experts argue the next step must embed climate intelligence into farm-level decisions. “Budget 2026 must fund monsoon-contingent nutrition advisories at scale — using rainfall analytics and soil data to dynamically adjust fertiliser recommendations — so farmers can shift from fixed schedules to climate-responsive feeding of crops,” says Dr Manish Singh, AVP–Technical & Marketing, Transworld Furtichem Limited. He proposes a unified Nutrient Efficiency Index (NEI), integrating soil-test data, cropping patterns, water use efficiency, and fertiliser balance. “Budgets and subsidies should be allocated based on NEI improvement, not fertiliser consumption. This drives balanced nutrition and scientific fertiliser use rather than volume-driven demand,” he added. “Budget 2026 must signal a decisive move from blanket input subsidies to outcome-linked support that rewards water use efficiency, balanced fertilisation and low-emission practices at the farm level.”​ — Dr Ramesh Chand, Member (Agriculture), NITI Aayog Budget 2026 also sought to ease liquidity bottlenecks by raising Kisan Credit Card limits from Rs 3 lakh to Rs 5 lakh, supporting smallholders, dairy farmers, fishers, and allied producers. Sectoral reforms — from the National Mission on High-Yielding Seeds and a five-year cotton revitalisation plan to institutions like Bihar’s Makhana Board — aimed to modernise production, while allocations for storage, logistics, and market infrastructure addressed post-harvest losses. “Budget 2026 must prioritise digital infrastructure, credit linkages, and rural capacity building to scale precision agriculture. Agri-drones, IoT and data analytics can boost yields, conserve resources and strengthen climate resilience. Targeted subsidies, public–private partnerships and R&D incentives will accelerate adoption, integrate technology with national agricultural databases, and shift India from subsidy dependence to self-reliant, innovation-led farming.”  – Agnishwar Jayaprakash, Founder and CEO of Garuda Aerospace Yet, experts insist these gains must now converge into a coherent resilience architecture. “The next Budget should consolidate irrigation, watershed, soil health, and climate missions into a single ‘National Resilient Farms Mission’ with district-level targets for water productivity and soil organic carbon,” says Dr V. K. Singh, Director, ICAR–Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA).  “Linking direct benefit transfers with soil health cards, precision nutrient management and diversified cropping will reduce fiscal stress while lifting total factor productivity across rainfed and irrigated systems.”​ — Dr. Ashok Gulati, Infosys Chair Professor for Agriculture at the Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) and former Chairman, Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices (CACP) Dr Himanshu Pathak, Director General of the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), adds, “Every rupee for irrigation must be co-anchored with micro-irrigation, fertigation-ready soils, and climate-resilient varieties so public investment translates into real resilience on farmers’ fields.” Budget 2026 will ultimately be judged on whether it can convert these incremental foundations into a mission-driven, 2047-ready agricultural architecture that delivers genuine resilience, competitiveness, and prosperity for India’s farmers. Fixing the Foundations: The Budget That Must Rewire Subsidies, Markets and Science As Budget 2026 approaches, it is evident that Indian agriculture stands at a pivotal crossroads. The long-standing promise of doubling farmers’ incomes, once a political mantra, now demands a sober re-examination. Structural pressures—from climate volatility and shrinking margins to global competitiveness and rising nutritional expectations—have made incrementalism insufficient.  “The allocation of the budget should be done across three horizons: the immediate year, the next five years, and the long-term vision through 2047,” asserts Sandeepa Kanitkar, Chairman of BASAI and Managing Director of Kan Biosys, highlighting that India’s agricultural budget—barely 2 per cent of total expenditure—is glaringly inadequate for a sector that contributes 17 per cent of GDP, sustains 55 per cent of the population, and underpins the nutrition of 140 crore citizens. “The next Budget should consolidate irrigation, watershed, soil health and climate missions into a single ‘National Resilient Farms Mission’ with clear district targets for water productivity and soil organic carbon.”​ — Dr V. K. Singh, Director, ICAR–CRIDA The inefficiencies of current spending are stark when viewed through the prism of subsidies. India invests roughly Rs 1.75 – 2 lakh crore annually on fertilisers, electricity, MSP procurement, crop insurance, and other input-linked supports, yet the returns in productivity, soil health, water security, and farmer incomes remain worryingly low.  “Subsidies have historically encouraged consumption rather than efficiency,” Sandeepa notes. Cheap urea drives over-application, subsidised electricity has accelerated groundwater depletion, irrigation grants rarely incentivise precision water use, and MSP procurement entrenches cropping patterns that undermine soil regeneration. For sectoral leaders, Budget 2026 must mark a decisive philosophical pivot—from input-heavy, subsidy-driven policies to a science-led, technology-driven, and outcome-oriented framework.  Every rupee for irrigation must be co-anchored with micro-irrigation, fertigation-ready soils and climate-resilient varieties so that public investment translates into real resilience on farmers’ fields.”​ — Dr Himanshu Pathak, Ex- Director General, ICAR & Secretary, DARE S. Soundararadjane, CEO of HyFarm, points to the potato sector as a model: “India could build the world’s most advanced, predictable, and globally competitive potato ecosystem through a National Potato Innovation Mission. CRISPR-edited varieties, AI-powered breeding, drone-led phenotyping, and mass deployment of True Potato Seeds can transform production while reducing costs and disease risks. Region-specific varieties are not optional anymore—they are strategic imperatives.” “Budget 2026 must reform subsidies by shifting from consumption-based support to science-led, Package of Practice–linked incentives tied to production outcomes. Performance-based support will improve soil health, enhance resource efficiency, and raise farmer incomes. Mechanisation assistance should be delivered via DBT and limited to FMTTI/BIS-approved equipment to ensure quality, effectiveness, and measurable impact on the ground.”  - Ravindra Agrawal, Chairman, KisanKraft Ltd Sandeepa further advocates restructuring through Direct Benefit Transfers (DBT). “Subsidies must be given through DBT to farmers and allow them to use this money as per their wish. This has started with Kisan Samman Nidhi but must be extrapolated by diverting subsidies given for insurance, fertilisers, electricity, and water to DBT,” she explains. Such a shift would correct long-standing distortions, empower decision-making, sharply reduce leakages, and create the fiscal headroom necessary to invest in science, innovation, and climate resilience. “To truly raise farm incomes, storage, grading, logistics and digital marketplaces must be treated as core agricultural infrastructure, not peripheral add-ons.”​ — Sanjiv Puri, Managing Director, ITC Ltd “A key priority must be efficiency-driven subsidy reform. We need to shift from consumption-based subsidies to scientifically designed, Package of Practice (PoP)–linked incentives tied directly to production outcomes. Performance-based support improves soil health, enhances resource efficiency, and strengthens farmer incomes. Mechanisation support should be delivered through DBT and restricted strictly to FMTTI/BIS-approved equipment to ensure quality and impact in the field,” says Ravindra Agrawal, Chairman, KisanKraft Ltd, emphasizing that combining DBT with outcome-linked incentives can amplify impact across mechanisation, inputs, and farm management practices. “India’s next big leap will come from shifting towards processed, residue-compliant, traceable and climate-smart agri-exports rather than relying mainly on bulk commodity shipments.”​ — Abhishek Dev, Chairman, APEDA Markets, too, are evolving in ways that demand more sophisticated production systems. The rising domestic and global appetite for residue-free food is already accelerating India’s biopesticide segment. Sandeepa emphasises that a formal residue-free label—jointly administered by the Ministries of Health and Agriculture—could unlock higher farmer incomes through premium market categories. “Blanket reduction on CIB-registered biopesticides must be done at the earliest to 5 per cent,” she cautions, noting that inconsistent GST categorisation is harming both growers and industry participants seeking safer input adoption. “Targeted support for FPOs, agri-startups and interoperable e-market platforms can cut post-harvest losses, stabilise prices and make climate risk more manageable for smallholders.”​ — Dr. Ashok Dalwai, Chairman, Board of Governors of the Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC); Chairman, Karnataka Agriculture The export ecosystem is entering a decisive phase. “India must position itself as a trusted global supplier,” says Kuchibhotla Srinivas, Partner, Deloitte. Strategic export corridors, residue-free clusters, bilateral agreements, and harmonisation with global standards, he argues, can convert India’s scale into global influence.  “If India wants to lead in exports, supply chains must embed traceability, quality assurance, and sustainable input use,” adds Ankur Aggarwal, Executive Chairman, Crystal Crop Protection. The global opportunity is clear. “India’s next big leap will come from shifting towards processed, residue-compliant, traceable, and climate-smart agri-exports rather than relying mainly on bulk commodity shipments,” says Abhishek Dev, Chairman of Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA). “The agri sector needs a unified national framework, science-based standards, and simplified licensing to enable innovation in high-value micronutrients and specialty fertilisers. Streamlined regulation will accelerate advanced nutrition technologies, strengthen soil health, and unlock productivity and profitability gains essential for truly transformative agricultural reform.”  — Dr. Rahul Mirchandani, President, IMMA  Value addition must become central to India’s strategy, particularly in crops like sugarcane. “Exports of sugar quota have to be restricted to further increase production of alcohol for oil substitution. Value addition is the key. Targets of 20 per cent plus substitution have to be the new target for easing some oil dollars. The money thus freed up can be used to improve irrigation, research, and perfecting models which are customised for Indian agriculture,” adds Sandeepa. Circularity, too, must become integral. Krishna Mohan Puvvada, Regional President, (Middle East, India and Africa), Novonesis stresses, “Adequate support must be provided for harnessing the waste-to-wealth potential in agriculture, including robust logistics for storage and transportation of agricultural waste feedstocks that can be transformed into fertilizers and bioenergy.” “A direct benefit transfer model for fertilisers—sold at full cost with farmers claiming subsidy via POS authentication—can be a game-changer. It ensures manufacturers receive full value, the government gains full GST, markets maintain adequate supply, leakages and black-marketing are curbed, and subsidy outlay reflects actual use. Budget 2026 should prioritise this transparent, efficient reform.” – Vinod Goyal, CEO, Agricare Corporation Domestic market architecture requires equal attention. Dr Ashok Dalwai, Chairman, Board of Governors of the Institute for Social and Economic Change (ISEC) and Chairman, Karnataka Agriculture Price Commission, notes, “Targeted support for FPOs, agri-startups, and interoperable e-market platforms can cut post-harvest losses, stabilise prices, and make climate risk more manageable for smallholders.” Institutional strengthening, he stresses, is vital for farmers to remain competitive amid market volatility. Budget 2026, therefore, must reimagine subsidies, shifting from input-centric to outcome-centric frameworks. “Water, soil and climate must be planned as one ecosystem. Budget 2026 should institutionalise watershed-scale irrigation planning, incentivise soil regeneration, and embed climate-risk analytics into district planning. This is not sustainability for compliance; it is sustainability for survival,” says Srinivas.  “Budget 2026 can back a flagship ‘Sulphur- and Potash-Secure India’ initiative that promotes sulphate-based potash and balanced secondary nutrients, improving taste, colour, shelf-life and exportability of fruits, vegetables and plantation crops while reducing import vulnerability.”--Dr. Manish Singh, AVP-Technical & Marketing, Transworld Furtichem Limited “For a water-starved nation like India, drip should be made compulsory. This would conserve soils along with improving the area of irrigation. The river-joining project must have allocation for short, medium, and long term. Bonds must be raised to mobilise domestic and World Bank funds,” adds Sandeepa. Structural gaps in specialised inputs also demand urgent attention. Dr Rahul Mirchandani, President, Indian Micro-Fertilizers Manufacturers Association (IMMA) observes, “India’s agricultural ecosystem is at an inflection point, yet not structurally prepared for large-scale reforms. One major gap lies in the micronutrients and specialty fertilizer industry, which remains outside mainstream policy despite its direct link to soil health, crop quality, and farmer income. Fragmented licensing under FCO, uneven state compliance frameworks, and the absence of a unified national policy slow innovation, restrict ease of doing business, and prevent rapid scale-up of advanced nutrition technologies like chelates, water-soluble fertilizers, and fortified micronutrient blends.”  “Budget 2026 must anchor a long-term Viksit Bharat Kheti Vision 2047 by reforming fertiliser use. Mandating a 25:15:5 co-pack of chemical, organic and biofertilisers—and supporting OF/BF manufacturing through PLI—can strengthen soil health, raise nutrient-use efficiency, expand acreage coverage and build climate-resilient productivity. It is time subsidies drive transformation, not perpetuate inefficiency ” --- Sandeepa Kanitkar, Chairman of BASAI and Managing Director of Kan Biosys Dr Singh underscores the strategic imperative: “Budget 2026 can back a flagship ‘Sulphur- and Potash-Secure India’ initiative that promotes sulphate-based potash and balanced secondary nutrients, improving taste, colour, shelf-life, and exportability of fruits, vegetables, and plantation crops while reducing import vulnerability.” Complementing this, Vinod Goyal, CEO, Agricare Corporation advocates a pragmatic DBT-based reform: “Fertilizers shall be sold on full cost price at dealer shops—farmers register purchases on a Point of Sale (POS) machine at the time of pick-up, and subsidies are directly transferred to their bank accounts.”  “Budget 2026 must treat water, soil and climate as one ecosystem by institutionalizing watershed-scale irrigation, incentivising soil regeneration and embedding climate-risk analytics in district planning. Equally critical is a legally robust Digital Land Ledger, interoperable with crop and credit data, to unlock formal finance, insurance and market access for millions of farmers still excluded from the system ” — Kuchibhotla Srinivas, Partner, Deloitte Sandeepa adds, “Chemical fertilizers should be bundled with organic and biofertilisers—25 kg of CF, 15 kg of OF, and 5 kg of BF per bag. This allows fertilizer to cover 30 per cent more land with improved use efficiency. Organic and biofertilizer industries can be supported through PLI schemes to attract private investment, improve soils, and build climate resilience.” As multiple industry leaders emphasise, this reform will determine whether Indian agriculture can truly align with the aspirations of Viksit Bharat 2047, delivering prosperity, sustainability, and global competitiveness for generations to come. Tech, Traceability, and Transformation: Budget 2026’s Agri-Vision Budget 2026 is not merely a fiscal exercise—it represents a strategic inflection point for Indian agriculture, an opportunity to pivot from incremental measures to transformative, technology-driven reforms.  “Agri-drones are no longer a novelty; they are an important part of the agritech landscape. Subsidies, public-private partnership models, and targeted R&D incentives can accelerate manufacturing and deployment, creating rural employment while increasing productivity. We must also potentially look at integrating drone data with national agricultural databases to enable smarter crop planning, soil monitoring, and weather resilience strategies,” says Agnishwar Jayaprakash, Founder and CEO of Garuda Aerospace. “ Fertiliser purchases must be linked to a unified Digital Farm ID, which allows tracking of nutrient use efficiency, preventing over-application and enabling customised advisory. It builds India’s first data-driven nutrient intelligence system’’ --- Yogesh Chandra, VP-Sales & Marketing, Transworld Furtichem Limited Echoing this vision, Soundararadjane, stresses that Budget 2026 should introduce a Digital Farming Acceleration Subsidy—shifting support from traditional inputs to IoT and automation tools such as soil moisture sensors, disease-warning IoT nodes, digital soil intelligence kits, smart irrigation systems, automated grading and sorting units, and low-cost climate stations for cold stores. “A 40–60 per cent capital subsidy will democratise access and unlock predictive, precision farming at scale,” he asserts. Equally critical is the foundation of clear land rights and reliable credit. “When a farmer has clear land ownership and predictable finance, they can finally shift from reactive decisions to planned, technology-led farming,” observes Ankur.  “Budget 2026 must accelerate digital land records and frictionless credit so farmers can plan, invest and adopt modern crop protection responsibly. To compete in global markets, India’s supply chains need embedded traceability, quality assurance and sustainable input use. Strategic public–private collaboration can fast-track safe pesticide practices, surveillance systems and next-generation, environmentally responsible formulations ” — Ankur Aggarwal, Executive Chairman, Crystal Crop Protection Srinivas adds, “The Budget should focus on the two biggest unlocks for farmer prosperity: clean digital land records and frictionless credit. A legally robust Digital Land Ledger, interoperable with crop data and credit scoring, can unlock formal finance, insurance, and market contracts for millions of farmers currently outside the system.” The systemic importance of logistics and digital marketplaces is reinforced by Sanjiv Puri, Managing Director, ITC Ltd: “To truly raise farm incomes, storage, grading, logistics, and digital marketplaces must be treated as core agricultural infrastructure, not peripheral add-ons.”  “Budget 2026 should launch a National Potato Innovation Mission to transform India into a globally competitive processing potato hub. A strong public–private R&D partnership must fast-track CRISPR-based climate-resilient varieties, AI-driven breeding, drone phenotyping, automated trials and True Potato Seeds. This science-led upgrade is essential for predictable supply, higher productivity and world-class processing quality.” – S. Soundararadjane, CEO of HyFarm Nutrient management, too, must be integrated. Yogesh Chandra, VP-Sales & Marketing, Transworld Furtichem Limited, explains, “Fertiliser purchases must be linked to a unified Digital Farm ID, allowing tracking of nutrient use efficiency, preventing over-application and enabling customised advisory. It builds India’s first data-driven nutrient intelligence system.” Budget 2026 must therefore deliver measurable, integrated reforms—embedding science, finance, technology, and policy into a unified, farmer-centric framework. It is the launchpad for the Viksit Bharat Kheti Vision 2047, enabling high-productivity, high-value, climate-smart agriculture and positioning India as a globally competitive agri-economy. ----- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3503/higher-regulatory-standards-raise-bar-for-new-antibiotics-but-create-opportunity-for-low-risk-biodegradable-alternatives.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3503/higher-regulatory-standards-raise-bar-for-new-antibiotics-but-create-opportunity-for-low-risk-biodegradable-alternatives.html Tue, 06 Jan 2026 11:44:23 +0530 In this exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Prof. Paula Hammond, Institute Professor and Executive Vice Provost at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Principal Investigator at SMART AMR; Prof. Mary Chan, NTU Singapore’s School of Chemistry, Chemical Engineering and Biotechnology, and the Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine and Principal Investigator at SMART AMR discuss their groundbreaking antimicrobial polymer platform poised to rewrite the rules of dairy health management. Addressing Bovine Mastitis—a $22 billion global challenge—they explain how Oligoimidazolium carbon acids (OIMs) and Polyimidazoliums (PIMs) deliver potent, low-dose, biodegradable protection without contaminating milk or driving antibiotic resistance. Their early farm trials in China, Malaysia, and Singapore exposed a startling technological stagnation in udder hygiene, revealing an urgent need for modern, eco-safe disinfectant solutions. With regulatory pathways complex and market systems fragmented, they outline a hybrid commercial model balancing direct product development with strategic global partnerships for scale. Their message is clear: antimicrobial innovation must now serve One Health—protecting animals, consumers, and the environment in equal measure. Edited excerpts: The Breakthrough and Its Global Context A $22 Billion Problem: Professor Hammond, bovine mastitis is one of the costliest animal health challenges worldwide. What led your team to focus on this long-standing issue, and what scientific insight unlocked the possibility of developing oligoimidazolium carbon acids (OIMs) as a safer antimicrobial alternative? Prof Mary Chan (my close colleague and collaborator at NTU Singapore) and I have always shared a strong interest in the generation of new polymeric materials for health applications, and we have been particularly interested in charged polymers. Through a collaboration launched by a visiting student from the Chan lab, the imidazolium set of polymers was generated and advanced. Prof Mary’s lab continued to develop more active antibiotic versions and discovered a unique mechanism in this family of materials that makes them highly effective for treatment and prevention of infection. As our research team at SMART began to work toward applying these systems for human health applications, leveraging methods developed in my lab, we saw the potential for these compounds to have an immediate impact on agricultural health. An early SMART researcher working within our shared team first began investigating the potential of the system in a small farm trial and, from that point, we have been pursuing ways in which these novel oligoimidazoliums (OIMs) can be used for safe agricultural applications. Beyond Resistance: Antibiotic resistance has often been framed as a human health crisis, but its agricultural dimension is equally alarming. How does your research reposition the conversation—bridging human, animal, and environmental health under the One Health paradigm? We developed a new class of cationic antimicrobial polymers based on carbene chemistry, so that these cationic polymers are a new class by themselves that are potent and effective in a complex environment and yet biodegradable – able to be degraded into smaller fragments. Our compounds are a class of main chain polyimidazoliums (PIMs)/OIMs. By designing compounds that are effective at low doses, biodegradable, and leave negligible residues in milk, we directly address resistance, agricultural food safety concerns and ecological contamination in one stroke. In practice, that means fewer antibiotics entering the food chain, fewer selective pressures for resistance in farm settings, and reduced downstream environmental impact. Science to Scale: From Lab Discovery to Dairy Field Farm Trial Insights: The initial field trials in Malaysia and Singapore showed encouraging results—no udder irritation, no milk contamination, and strong bacterial suppression. What were the most surprising learnings from translating this molecular innovation to real-world dairy operations? Our initial farm trial was completed in China, and our ongoing farm trial is in Malaysia and Singapore. One of the most striking learnings was how little the technology in modern dairy farming has evolved for udder hygiene, especially in regard to the gap between antibiotics and disinfectants. Despite advances in overall farming practices, there aren’t disinfectants that are both safe and quick acting. The teat dips used today, which typically consist of iodine or chlorhexidine, are essentially the same as several decades ago. This revealed a critical gap between the growing sustainability requirements in modern agriculture and the outdated tools currently available, underscoring the urgent need for innovations like degradable PIMs that are effective, safe and environmentally friendly. Scaling Innovation: You mentioned industry interest from Australia, Belgium, Malaysia, and New Zealand. What does it take to move from promising lab results to full-scale commercialisation in the heavily regulated animal health industry? Commercialisation requires a coordinated program: scaled Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) systems, larger and geographically diverse field trials, robust safety testing, regulatory dossiers for each target market, and credible industry partnerships for distribution and farmer education. Because animal health regulation is regionally fragmented, a pragmatic pathway is to pair focused pilot commercialisation in receptive markets with licensing or joint ventures for wider rollout. The Business of Biotech and Antimicrobial Innovation Commercialisation Pathway: The research is now transitioning to a spin-off company. What is the envisioned business model—direct product commercialisation, licensing to agribusiness majors, or joint ventures with dairy cooperatives? We envision a flexible, hybrid model. Initially, the spin-off will drive product development and secure key regulatory approvals and pilot customers. For broad, rapid deployment, we expect to pursue strategic partnerships with established agribusiness and animal health companies that already have market reach and customer relationships. Joint development agreements with regional partners will also help customise formulations and application protocols for different farming systems. Policy Catalysts: What regulatory or policy shifts—whether in the U.S., EU, or Asia—would most accelerate the adoption of antibiotic alternatives like OIMs in mainstream agriculture? Concrete regulatory actions are already reshaping antibiotic use in agriculture: the European Union (EU) prohibited the preventive use of antibiotics in groups of animals and tightened veterinary oversight under Regulation EU 2019/6. In China, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs banned the use of most antibiotic growth promoters in animal feed in 2020. Specifically in the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) phased out growth-promotion uses via Guidance for Industry (GFI) #213; at the same time, GFI #152 requires rigorous microbiological risk assessment for any new antimicrobial in food animals. These higher regulatory standards raise the bar for new antibiotics but create an opportunity for low-risk, biodegradable alternatives like OIMs that do not select for human-relevant resistance. Science, Systems, and Sustainability Rethinking Animal Health: In many ways, bovine mastitis is a microcosm of global food system fragility—overreliance on antibiotics, environmental pollution, and supply chain waste. How can cross-disciplinary R&D, such as SMART AMR’s approach, reshape the future of veterinary science? When scientists, engineers and other experts work together, we get a better understanding of the challenges that we face and the tools that we have available to apply to them, and it is possible to see new ways of addressing decades-old problems. By keeping sustainability and safety as part of the solution requirement, we can evolve our science towards a more holistic approach in which the short and long-term outcomes are considered. Sustainable solutions can be further advanced by bringing scientists together with agricultural and veterinary experts and policy makers to better understand where and how to best focus our cross-disciplinary efforts. The Decade Ahead: As an MIT Institute Professor and a leader in translational science, how do you see the next decade of antimicrobial R&D evolving—especially in balancing synthetic chemistry, bioengineering, and planetary health imperatives? There will be great opportunities in the coming decade to move away from more traditional antimicrobial drugs and towards innovative approaches that address microbes across a multi-spectrum fashion while reducing harm to animal health and the planet. To accomplish this goal, we will need to deploy creative materials chemistry with a deep understanding of biology and ecological considerations. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3502/building-climate-resilience-from-seed-to-shelf-why-agrobiodiversity-is-becoming-strategic-imperative.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3502/building-climate-resilience-from-seed-to-shelf-why-agrobiodiversity-is-becoming-strategic-imperative.html Mon, 05 Jan 2026 13:01:51 +0530 Insights from the AgroSpectrum–GFAiR dialogue reveal how dryland crops, participatory breeding, and value-chain integration can transform biodiversity from a conservation ideal into a scalable strategy for climate-resilient, nutrition-secure food systems At a time when climate volatility, water stress, nutritional insecurity, and biodiversity loss are converging into a systemic food crisis, agrobiodiversity is no longer a peripheral concern—it is rapidly becoming a strategic imperative. This was the central message that emerged from “Mainstreaming Agrobiodiversity in Global Value Chains,” an AgroSpectrum webinar organised in partnership with GFAiR – The Global Forum on Agricultural Research and Innovation, bringing together leading voices from international research, plant breeding, policy, and state-level implementation. The webinar moved deliberately beyond conservation rhetoric to examine how biodiversity can be operationalised across seed systems, breeding pipelines, food processing, and markets. By anchoring global scientific insights alongside grounded implementation experiences, the discussion reframed agrobiodiversity not as a nostalgic return to the past, but as a forward-looking economic and resilience strategy for climate-constrained food systems. Dryland Crops: Not Underutilised, but Underinvested Setting the global analytical frame, Dr Stefania Grando, International Consultant, Agronomist and Plant Breeder, challenged one of the most persistent assumptions in agricultural development—that millets, sorghum, barley, and dryland legumes are marginal crops with limited relevance to modern food systems. Drawing on more than three decades of work across CGIAR systems, she argued that this narrative fundamentally misdiagnoses the problem. The constraint facing dryland crops, she emphasised, is not agronomy or farmer reluctance, but scientific prioritisation—and the investment architecture that flows from it. “Climate change is not a single stress but a moving constellation of uncertainties. While rising temperatures and declining rainfall are globally visible, their local expression is impossible to predict. Breeding, therefore, must target variability itself, not a fixed outcome. Uniform, input-intensive varieties are ill-suited to this reality. Dryland crops, shaped by centuries of stress and uncertainty, already embody the resilience modern breeding systems urgently need—but continue to be systematically underinvested.” --- Dr Stefania Grando, International Consultant, Agronomist and Plant Breeder At a moment when climate change has transformed agriculture into a moving target rather than a predictable system, Dr Stefania Grando noted that breeding for uniformity has become a structural weakness. The global food system remains anchored to a narrow triumvirate—rice, wheat, and maize—optimised for an era of climatic stability and cheap inputs. In contrast, dryland crops evolved under stress, variability, and low external inputs. Yet they receive only a fraction of global research funding and breeding attention. The consequences of this concentration are systemic: accelerated genetic erosion, hollowed-out value chains, rising dependence on water and fertilisers, and the displacement of nutrient-dense traditional diets by calorie-heavy alternatives. In many arid and semi-arid regions, dryland crops now represent the last viable defence against land degradation and desertification. Still, their strategic importance remains largely invisible in mainstream policy and investment decisions. At the centre of this neglect lies a missing link—seed systems. Without functional pathways connecting gene banks, breeders, farmers, processors, and markets, biodiversity remains frozen in collections rather than alive and adaptive in farmers’ fields. Restoring diversity, Dr Stefania Grando argued, requires a decisive shift from conservation to use—building networks of adaptation that make biodiversity economically viable rather than morally symbolic. From Legacy to Leverage: Odisha’s Biodiversity Playbook If Dr Stefania Grando articulated the global diagnosis, Odisha offered a rare example of treatment at scale. Representing the Department of Agriculture and Farmers’ Empowerment, Government of Odisha, Dinesh Balam outlined how the state has deliberately reframed agrobiodiversity from a legacy issue to be preserved into a forward-looking economic and climate resilience strategy. Rather than importing varietal solutions designed elsewhere, Odisha began by taking stock of its own agroecological wealth. Across intervention blocks, the state assembled the full spectrum of available millet diversity—farmer-conserved landraces alongside formally released varieties—and subjected them to participatory varietal trials under real farm conditions. Farmers acted not as technology recipients but as primary evaluators, assessing crops on yield, taste, lodging resistance, pest tolerance, and performance under Odisha’s increasingly erratic rainfall patterns. “Odisha built an institutional bridge between conservation and commerce by redesigning seed systems around farmers. Through ‘crop diversity blocks,’ landraces are evaluated side by side under real farm conditions, selected by farmers, and then purified, multiplied, and scaled through FPO-led seed production. By treating in-situ conservation as a public good and rewarding farmers for it, biodiversity becomes not a legacy to preserve, but a productive, income-generating asset embedded in the state’s agricultural strategy.” --- Dinesh Balam, Representing the Department of Agriculture and Farmers’ Empowerment, Government of Odisha The outcomes were instructive. In over 80 per cent of cases, farmers preferred local landraces to formally released varieties. Subsequent scientific assessments validated these preferences, revealing that at least 14 traditional varieties outperformed university-bred lines on both yield and resilience traits within local micro-agroclimatic conditions. The bottleneck, as Balam noted, was not performance but institutional recognition. To address this, Odisha built a dedicated seed system for landraces—anchored in crop diversity blocks, scientific purification protocols, and decentralised seed production led by farmer producer organisations (FPOs), with technical backstopping from public research institutions. Conservation was treated as a public good, and farmers were rewarded as custodians and innovators. What began with millets is now expanding to pulses, oilseeds, and vegetables through a formal state scheme on neglected crops and forgotten foods, signalling a shift from pilot interventions to systemic policy adoption. Africa’s Perspective: Diversity Exists, Scaling Does Not Bringing a grounded African perspective to the discussion, Dr Juliana Jepkemoi Cheboi, Vice Chairperson, Plant Breeding Association of Kenya (PBAK), argued that the continent’s central challenge has never been a lack of genetic diversity, but the failure to scale innovation without marginalising smallholders. “Africa’s challenge is not a lack of biodiversity but the failure of seed systems to scale it inclusively. In arid regions like Kenya, maize-centric policies have created a mismatch between crops and climate. Landraces and wild relatives of sorghum, millets, and indigenous vegetables already offer heat tolerance, low water demand, and superior nutrition. Reintegrating them into breeding systems—through participatory selection and community seed banks—can turn biodiversity from rhetoric into climate-resilient livelihoods.”  -- Dr Juliana Jepkemoi Cheboi, Vice Chairperson, Plant Breeding Association of Kenya (PBAK) In countries such as Kenya—where more than 80 per cent of land lies in arid and semi-arid zones—the dominance of maize-centric research and policy has created a structural mismatch between crops and climate. Dr Juliana Cheboi highlighted how landraces and wild relatives of sorghum, finger millet, and indigenous vegetables such as amaranth and spider plant already carry the traits required for heat tolerance, low water use, and nutrient density. Yet they remain largely excluded from formal breeding pipelines. Reintegrating these crops, she stressed, requires participatory varietal selection, stronger links between formal seed systems and community gene banks, and deliberate inclusion of women and youth across value chains. Only by aligning farmer demand, breeding priorities, and policy incentives can biodiversity transition from conservation rhetoric to an engine of inclusive, climate-resilient food systems. Rethinking Staples: Biodiversity From Within Challenging the perceived trade-off between staples and diversity, Dr Natalia Palacios Rojas, Principal Scientist, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), reframed the role of maize and wheat in future food systems. As global agriculture confronts the simultaneous transgression of planetary and health boundaries, she argued that staples must deliver nutrition, sustainability, and economic viability—without sacrificing yield or farmer adoption. “ Nutrition cannot be delivered by genetics alone. At CIMMYT, we are reconnecting breeding with farming systems and food culture—learning from models like the milpa, where maize, legumes, and vegetables are grown together to build productivity, soil health, and resilience. Processing innovations such as whole-kernel use, fermentation, nixtamalization, and blended flours allow staples to carry greater nutritional diversity, showing that yield, health, and market acceptance can reinforce—not compete with each other. ” --- Dr Natalia Palacios Rojas, Principal Scientist, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) At CIMMYT, this has translated into embedding nutritional biodiversity directly into maize and wheat through biofortification for zinc, provitamin A, protein quality, and fibre. Participatory breeding now ensures that nutrition-enhanced varieties reflect farmer and consumer preferences, guiding target product profiles that respond to real-world demand rather than laboratory assumptions. Dr Rojas also emphasised that breeding alone is insufficient. By drawing on traditional farming systems such as Latin America’s milpa, and rethinking food processing through whole-grain use, fermentation, nixtamalization, and blended flours combining staples with sorghum, millets, legumes, and indigenous crops, CIMMYT is reconnecting genetics, diets, and culture—while reducing food loss and waste. From Silos to Systems: The Global Policy Lens Placing these field-level experiences within the wider architecture of global research and governance, Joanna Kane-Potaka, Executive Secretary, GFAiR – The Global Forum on Agricultural Research and Innovation, argued that agrobiodiversity remains structurally disadvantaged by fragmented policy frameworks. While biodiversity features prominently in national strategies, most governments continue to operate through siloed mandates—separating nutrition, environment, and commodity support. “Biodiversity will not scale through isolated interventions. It requires whole-of-value-chain alignment—linking seed systems, markets, processing, certification, and consumer demand. Dryland and underutilised crops already deliver a triple dividend for nutrition, the environment, and farmer livelihoods, yet remain locked out by weak incentives. Rebuilding demand from seed to plate, through smarter staples and true co-partnerships, is essential—where farmers are not beneficiaries of innovation, but its co-architects.” --- Joanna Kane-Potaka, Executive Secretary, GFAiR – The Global Forum on Agricultural Research and Innovation For biodiversity-led innovation to scale, Joanna stressed the need for whole-of-value-chain alignment—integrating seed systems, markets, processing, certification, and consumer demand. Dryland crops and underutilised species already embody a triple dividend of nutrition, environmental sustainability, and farmer livelihoods, yet remain excluded due to weak incentives and eroded market infrastructure. Reversing this trajectory, she concluded, requires “smarter staples,” rebuilt demand from seed to plate, and a shift from partnerships to co-partnerships—where farmers are not beneficiaries of innovation, but co-architects of it. From Narrative to Strategy The AgroSpectrum–GFAiR webinar underscored a central truth: Agrobiodiversity does not fail because farmers reject it. It fails when institutions lack the mechanisms to recognise, validate, and reward it. Across geographies—from Odisha to East Africa to global breeding programmes—the science exists, farmer willingness exists, and the climate imperative is unmistakable. What remains is a strategic choice. In a climate-constrained world, resilience will not emerge from uniformity. It will come from diversity—scientifically supported, economically rewarded, and mainstreamed into global value chains. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3501/indian-food-revolution-in-america-street-fine-dining-and-beyond.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3501/indian-food-revolution-in-america-street-fine-dining-and-beyond.html Fri, 02 Jan 2026 15:18:47 +0530 Once boxed into stereotypes, Indian food in the U.S. has exploded into fine dining, street culture, wellness, retail, and tech-driven delivery—just as tariffs and geopolitics put its resilience to the test. Indian cuisine in the United States is in the midst of a once-in-a-generation transformation. Long confined in the American imagination to “curry and naan,” it has broken free of stereotype and scale alike. Today, Indian food stretches confidently across formats—vibrant street food, Michelin-level fine dining, cloud kitchens, wellness beverages, premium snacks, and even spirits—claiming space in food halls, boardrooms, grocery aisles, and cultural conversations. This renaissance has been fueled by powerful forces: demographic growth, rising affluence, technological adoption, and a new American appetite for authenticity and global flavor. Yet just as Indian cuisine has reached critical mass, it faces an unexpected test—not from diners, but from geopolitics. The imposition of steep U.S. tariffs on Indian imports has begun to reshape cost structures, supply chains, and pricing strategies, forcing the ecosystem to prove its resilience. The story of Indian food in America today is therefore not just one of ascent, but of adaptation under pressure. Market Dynamics: Demographics, Affluence and Appetite The numbers tell the story. According to the Pew Research Center, approximately 3.1 million Indians have migrated to—or been born in—the United States since 2000, a staggering 174 per cent increase in just over two decades. This demographic surge is accompanied by significant economic clout: Indian-American households report a median income of $151,000 in 2023, compared with $105,000 for Asian Americans broadly, positioning them as a high-spending, experience-driven consumer segment. The implications for the culinary landscape are profound. Affluent Indian-American households are demanding authentic regional flavors and quality ingredients, encouraging restaurateurs and brands to innovate. Beyond this diaspora, adventurous American consumers—particularly millennials and Gen Z—are increasingly willing to explore global cuisines. Datassential reports that new Indian restaurant openings reached 115 in December 2024, up from just 54 in September 2018. By 2025, 154 upscale Indian dining establishments were operating across the U.S., a sharp increase from 101 in January 2018. The result is a fertile environment in which Indian cuisine can thrive across multiple channels, from street food pop-ups to fine dining experiences and packaged products that land directly in consumers’ kitchens. Fine Dining: Regional Sophistication Meets American Palates Fine dining is emerging as one of the most visible arenas of Indian culinary evolution. Chefs are moving beyond generalized North-South categorizations, highlighting the hyper-regional diversity of India. Patrons may now find Rajasthani ker sangri, Konkani fish curry, Kashmiri nadru yakhni, and even tribal forest-based specialties on menus across New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Innovation and technology are central to this transformation. Precision cooking techniques, smart tandoors, and AI-enabled menu recommendations allow chefs to cater to gluten-free, plant-based, or low-carb dietary preferences, while AR-enhanced menus and open kitchens create immersive storytelling experiences. These strategies marry authenticity with experimentation, appealing simultaneously to high-income Indian-American diners and cosmopolitan food enthusiasts eager for global culinary adventures. Restaurants like Vikas Khanna’s Bungalow in New York exemplify this trend, reimagining Indian street food through a fine-dining lens. The plating may be modern, but the heart remains traditional: vibrant flavors, textures, and spices that connect diners to India’s culinary soul. This mirrors the evolution of global street foods such as ramen, sushi, and tacos, which transitioned from street stalls to table-service sophistication without losing authenticity. Street Food: Authenticity, Curiosity, and Cultural Impact American diners have become increasingly curious about authenticity. They want food with character, story, and place—not just a generic “Indian buffet.” Street food captures this perfectly: it is vibrant, democratic, and endlessly creative. Dishes like chaat, dosa, and pav bhaji deliver layered textures and complex spice profiles that align seamlessly with the modern palate’s love of contrast and global flavor. Celebrity chef Mariko Amekodommo, renowned for cooking for Hollywood A-listers, explains the trend: "The success of concepts like Chai Pani and Vikas Khanna’s Bungalow shows how Indian street food can evolve into fine dining without losing its soul. The plating may be modern, but the heart remains the same—food that connects people through joy, color, and spice. It’s authenticity redefined as sophistication, much like ramen or tacos once transitioned from street to table." Street food acts as both an entry point for new consumers and a proving ground for regional dishes that often migrate into premium restaurant offerings. It sits at the crossroads of comfort and innovation, giving Americans a new way to experience India that is playful, inclusive, and deeply rooted in tradition. From Queens to San Francisco, these establishments illustrate a clear trend: Indian cuisine is thriving coast-to-coast, balancing regional depth, street-level authenticity, and experiential dining. A Culinary Boom Meets a Trade Shock Just as Indian cuisine has achieved this cultural momentum, external forces have intervened. On July 31, President Donald Trump imposed additional tariffs on Indian exports, which came into effect on August 27—doubling duties on most Indian goods to 50 per cent. While the legality of the tariffs is now being debated , the economic impact has already rippled through New York City’s Indian food ecosystem. Restaurants that had become destinations for Wall Street executives and culinary tourists are now grappling with sharply higher ingredient costs. A 40-pound bag of basmati rice that once cost $30 now wholesales for $45. A 500-gram pack of chili powder has jumped from $7 to $10.50. Coconut milk cases have risen from $38 to $48. Arhar dal has surged from $62 to $82 per bag, while ghee—essential to countless dishes—has climbed more than 46 per cent, from $150 to $220 per case. Margins in restaurants are notoriously thin. For many owners, these increases are not easily passed on to diners without risking demand. Some are cautiously raising prices; others are absorbing costs or redesigning menus. Importers, facing pricing uncertainty, are scaling back shipments. The result is a rare moment where geopolitics directly shapes what ends up on the plate. Digital Adoption: Cloud Kitchens, Ghost Kitchens, and Delivery Technology is amplifying Indian cuisine’s reach. Cloud kitchens, ghost kitchens, and subscription-based tiffin services are delivering authentic flavors at scale. AI-powered ordering, multilingual voice menus, and integrated delivery platforms are meeting the expectations of tech-savvy consumers, while subscription models—offering rotating regional menus or street food specials—expand recurring revenue streams. High-income Indian-American households support premium ingredients, while younger, globally curious consumers explore novel regional flavors. Digital kitchens, ready-to-cook meal kits, and subscription services now bring Indian culinary traditions into American homes, deepening familiarity and loyalty. Indian Snacks and Beverages: Expanding Global Appeal Indian flavors are no longer confined to restaurants—they are rapidly infiltrating U.S. retail and wellness markets, reaching consumers through an increasingly diverse range of snacks, beverages, and functional foods. Traditional beverages, street food-inspired wraps, health-forward confectionery, and even premium spirits are all part of this expanding culinary footprint, signaling that Indian cuisine has become a multi-channel phenomenon. Take Choolaah’s Mango Lassi, for example. This Ohio-based fast-casual chain has leveraged the universal appeal of the Alphonso mango, offering a premium lassi that has quickly become a bestseller. Its success demonstrates that American consumers are not only willing to try Indian beverages but are actively seeking authentic flavors prepared with care and quality ingredients. Similarly, Skippi, originally known for its ice pops, has successfully diversified into savory snacks such as Cream & Onion and Lemon & Mint. By experimenting with Indian-inspired profiles in familiar snack formats, the brand is showing that traditional Indian flavor profiles can move fluidly into American taste preferences without alienating mainstream consumers. Children, too, are becoming part of this cultural exchange. ITC Sunfeast’s Super Egg & Milk Biscuits combine Indian flavors with Western snack formats, offering a product that balances taste, nutrition, and fun. At the same time, ADF Foods Roti Wraps are translating popular street food items like Paneer Biryani and Tandoori Aloo into convenient, on-the-go meals, enabling busy urban consumers to enjoy the vibrancy of Indian street food without leaving home or office. These products highlight a crucial point: accessibility and convenience are just as important as authenticity in driving adoption among new consumer segments. Health and wellness trends further amplify Indian flavors’ U.S. appeal. Confectionery and functional foods are integrating traditional spices and adaptogens into indulgent formats, a prime example being Turmeric Latte Chocolate and Van Houten’s Spiced Chocolate, which combine turmeric, chai, and other Indian spices to appeal to wellness-conscious yet indulgent consumers. Similarly, chai- and saffron-flavored protein bars are creating a niche where exotic flavors meet functional nutrition, appealing to fitness-oriented and health-conscious demographics that value both taste and wellbeing. Even traditional ingredients are finding modern applications. Good Phats Ghee has taken a centuries-old staple and repositioned it as a versatile spread and cooking ingredient suitable for contemporary kitchens, bridging heritage and innovation. Premium spirits, too, are entering this narrative. Paul John Indian Whisky, crafted from six-row barley and distilled in traditional copper pot stills, has positioned India as a rising player in the global whisky market, introducing consumers to both craftsmanship and provenance. Finally, the fusion of global inspiration with Indian soul is exemplified by Juicy Brick, which draws from East Asian juice and snack concepts while infusing Indian spices. Co-founder of Juicy Brick, Grace Bryan emphasizes the brand’s mission: “By blending Indian spices into our juice and snack offerings, we’re creating an entirely new flavor profile that appeals to the adventurous U.S. consumer. It’s East meets West, but with Indian soul.” Juicy Brick’s approach illustrates how Indian flavors are not just being transplanted but creatively reinterpreted to resonate with American tastes while retaining cultural authenticity. Together, these innovations underscore the synergy between restaurants, retail, and wellness products, demonstrating that Indian cuisine’s influence in the U.S. is broad, multi-faceted, and increasingly mainstream. By offering consumers a combination of authenticity, convenience, health, and creativity, these products are reinforcing Indian flavors’ visibility, accessibility, and adoption across American households, establishing a foundation for long-term culinary influence. Health, Sustainability, and Culinary Innovation The modern U.S. Indian dining scene is not only about flavor—it is increasingly defined by conscious choices that align with health, sustainability, and cultural authenticity. Restaurants across the country are embracing eco-friendly practices, from biodegradable packaging and compostable tableware to transparent carbon footprint labeling. By integrating sustainability into their operations, chefs and restaurateurs are responding to a growing segment of American consumers who prioritize environmental responsibility as much as taste. On the culinary side, Indian chefs are creatively reinterpreting traditional ingredients to meet contemporary health and wellness trends. Millets, once staples of Indian rural diets, are finding their way into pilafs, breads, and even desserts, valued for their high fiber content, low glycemic index, and climate-resilient cultivation. Similarly, adaptogens and Ayurvedic herbs such as ashwagandha, turmeric, and holy basil are being incorporated into drinks, snacks, and main courses, delivering functional benefits while retaining cultural authenticity. Gut-friendly foods, fermented ingredients like pickles, dosa batters, and probiotic lassis are also gaining traction, appealing to health-conscious diners interested in digestive wellness. This fusion of tradition and innovation resonates across consumer segments. Affluent Indian-American households appreciate that these culinary practices honor heritage while delivering modern nutritional value, while the broader mainstream audience increasingly seeks meals that are both flavorful and health-forward. By marrying authenticity with wellness and environmental consciousness, Indian cuisine is differentiating itself from other global cuisines, creating a unique competitive advantage in the U.S. market. Beyond nutrition and sustainability, this trend has cultural and experiential dimensions. Diners are engaging not only with taste but with the story behind each dish—the region it comes from, the locally sourced or sustainable ingredients it uses, and the wellness principles it embodies. In this way, health-conscious innovation becomes a vehicle for storytelling, deepening consumer connection and reinforcing the cultural credibility of Indian cuisine. In essence, Indian restaurants and brands in the U.S. are simultaneously safeguarding tradition, embracing innovation, and addressing the values of today’s conscious consumer—a strategy that ensures the cuisine’s relevance, resilience, and long-term appeal. Convergence of Trends: How Indian Cuisine is Taking Over U.S. Tables The rise of Indian cuisine in the United States isn’t just a trend—it’s a full-blown cultural movement, where flavors, technology, and storytelling collide to create a culinary ecosystem that’s impossible to ignore. What’s remarkable is how all the pieces—restaurants, snacks, beverages, and even wellness foods—feed off each other, each channel amplifying the others and bringing Indian flavors into more hands, hearts, and kitchens than ever before. Fine dining and street food, often seen as opposite ends of the spectrum, are actually partners in flavor. Upscale kitchens are exploring hyper-regional dishes with surgical precision—think Rajasthani ker sangri or Kashmiri nadru yakhni—while telling the stories behind every spice and ingredient. Meanwhile, street food is bringing that same authenticity to a wider audience: chaat, pav bhaji, and dosa that pop with texture, spice, and color, delivered in casual pop-ups, fast-casual kitchens, and food halls. Together, these two worlds create a delicious feedback loop: a street-favorite dish can graduate to fine dining stardom, while high-concept plating inspires casual chefs to experiment in playful, accessible ways. Driving this culinary surge is a demographic and economic engine. The Indian-American community has grown rapidly over the past two decades, and their median household incomes are well above the national average. They are demanding authenticity, premium ingredients, and regional nuance. But it’s not just the diaspora who are hungry—millennials and Gen Z are chasing food with story, spice, and personality. They want dishes that surprise the palate, ignite conversation, and transport them halfway across the world in a single bite. Chefs and brands that understand this are winning loyalty and shaping taste buds from coast to coast. Technology is the secret sauce that’s scaling this revolution. Cloud kitchens, ghost kitchens, and subscription meal kits are making it easier than ever to get authentic Indian flavors delivered to your door, while AI-powered ordering platforms allow for personalization—spice level, dietary preferences, or rotating regional menus. Virtual kitchens also provide a playground for experimentation, letting chefs test bold regional dishes or street food mashups before rolling them out at scale. A concept that once lived in one city can now travel digitally, reaching diners across the nation. And it’s not just about restaurants. Indian flavors are moving into every corner of the pantry. Turmeric-laced chocolates, chai-spiced protein bars, on-the-go Roti wraps, and Alphonso mango lassis are becoming household staples. These products make it easy for Americans to bring Indian cuisine into everyday life, creating a cycle where curiosity about restaurants fuels interest in retail, and vice versa. The result? A multi-channel culinary ecosystem where Indian flavors are always on display, always accessible, and always delicious. Sustainability and wellness give this story an extra layer of flavor. Restaurants and brands are integrating millets, Ayurvedic herbs, adaptogens, and gut-friendly foods into creative dishes, snacks, and drinks. Biodegradable packaging, compostable tableware, and ingredient transparency appeal to eco-conscious diners, while health-minded consumers embrace offerings that are both indulgent and functional. Indian cuisine, in other words, has found a way to be both soul-satisfying and value-driven, appealing to anyone who wants to eat thoughtfully without sacrificing taste. The end result is something rare: a dynamic, culturally rich phenomenon. Indian cuisine in America has moved beyond the immigrant corner of the market into a vibrant, multi-channel ecosystem, alive with flavor, story, and experimentation. It thrives where authenticity meets innovation, street meets fine dining, and restaurants meet retail shelves. For American diners hungry for spice, texture, and a story behind every bite, Indian cuisine isn’t just a meal—it’s a journey. And as it continues to evolve, it’s not merely keeping pace; it’s shaping the culinary imagination of a nation and redefining what it means to eat Indian. ---- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3495/asias-new-food-reality-persistent-inflation-hidden-costs-and-dietary-shifts.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3495/asias-new-food-reality-persistent-inflation-hidden-costs-and-dietary-shifts.html Wed, 24 Dec 2025 16:34:56 +0530 Managing the transition - From cheap food to resilient, quality-driven systems For decades, Asia’s economic rise was underpinned by affordable food. Incomes grew, urbanisation accelerated, and households spent a shrinking share of their budgets on staples. However, in 2025, the structural foundations of cheap food began to erode. Across the region, consumers are paying more for food—not just because prices spike temporarily, but because the underlying economics of production, distribution, and risk have shifted. The era when food inflation was a short-lived headline has given way to a new normal where price pressures are persistent, uneven, and politically consequential. Food Price Dynamics: Mixed Signals, Persistent Pressure At the consumer level, food inflation across Asia has become uneven, category-specific, and increasingly driven by domestic transmission mechanisms rather than headline global prices. The era when falling global grain or sugar prices reliably translated into cheaper food for households is fading. What now matters as much as futures markets is how costs move through energy systems, processing chains, cold storage, logistics networks, labour markets, and food service ecosystems. Across Asia, consumer price data compiled by Trading Economics shows that food inflation is resurfacing in pockets even as global commodity indices remain relatively calm — underscoring a widening disconnect between wholesale price signals and what households actually pay at the checkout counter.This divergence reflects a structural shift. Food inflation is no longer primarily a farm-level phenomenon. It is increasingly a systems-level outcome shaped by fuel prices, electricity tariffs, packaging materials, disease management in protein supply, climate-induced volatility in perishables, and rising compliance and labour costs. As a result, price pressures are now most acute in categories that are processed, transported, stored, or prepared — even when raw agricultural output remains ample.Nowhere is this shift clearer than in Singapore, which functions less as an outlier and more as an early-warning system for the rest of the region. With near-total reliance on imports and limited scope for price smoothing through domestic buffers, the city-state absorbs global price movements, currency shifts, and supply chain costs with minimal delay. According to Trading Economics, food prices rose 1.2 percent year-on-year in September 2024 — the fastest pace since April — even as global grain and sugar markets showed little sign of stress.The composition of this inflation matters more than the headline figure. Rice and cereals recorded only modest increases. Fish prices edged up marginally. Fruits and vegetables even slipped into mild deflation. Calories remained broadly affordable. The pressure instead concentrated in oils and fats, sugar and confectionery, beverages, and meat — precisely the categories most exposed to energy inputs, processing intensity, and global edible oil markets. Singapore’s experience illustrates how food inflation in Asia is shifting away from staple scarcity toward the rising cost of modern, protein- and energy-intensive diets.Malaysia reinforces this diagnosis from a different angle. Trading Economics data for September 2025 shows food prices rising 2.1 percent year-on-year, the steepest increase since June, driven primarily by fish and seafood, oils and fats, sugar-related products, and food consumed outside the home. These are not the segments typically associated with harvest failure or weather shocks. They are segments where costs accumulate after the farm gate — through cold chains, transport, processing, and food service operations.At the same time, food prepared at home remained broadly stable. Cereals, meat, fruits, and vegetables recorded price declines, while milk, dairy products, and eggs stabilised after earlier deflation. This divergence highlights a crucial point: Malaysia’s food inflation is not being driven by agricultural scarcity. It is being driven by the economics of conversion — the cost of turning raw food into meals — at a time when household incomes are not rising fast enough to absorb those increases without friction.China, too, fits this broader pattern, though in a way that can easily mislead. Trading Economics figures for October 2025 show food prices still falling year-on-year, but at a slower pace than earlier in the year — the ninth consecutive monthly decline, yet the smallest since July. On the surface, China appears insulated from Asia’s food inflation pressures.The details suggest otherwise. Declines in fresh vegetables, eggs, cooking oils, dairy products, and fruit have all moderated. Pork prices — a politically sensitive bellwether — continue to fall, but at a slower rate, as abundant supply and lower feed costs offset a modest recovery in demand during the Golden Week holidays. These trends indicate that the forces suppressing prices — oversupply, weak consumption, and aggressive inventory management — are gradually losing momentum.China’s food deflation is not evidence of structural abundance. It is the outcome of scale, state intervention, and demand compression. Beneath the surface, processing margins, logistics operators, and food service businesses face the same cost pressures seen elsewhere in Asia. Beijing has so far chosen to absorb or suppress these pressures through policy and inventory control, stabilising consumers in the short term while compressing farm incomes and shifting stress downstream in the value chain.Taken together, these country-level patterns point to a common conclusion. Asia is not experiencing a uniform food inflation shock. It is entering a regime of persistent, uneven pressure — one where prices rise not because crops fail, but because the systems that move, transform, and serve food have become structurally more expensive to operate. In this environment, calm global indices offer reassurance, but not relief. The next phase of food inflation in Asia will be quieter, harder to reverse, and far more politically sensitive than the shocks that came before. Proteins and Vegetable Oils: Upward Pressure Where It Hurts Most If cereals historically anchored food affordability, proteins and edible fats are now the engines of inflation. Even where staple grains and vegetables remain relatively stable, rising prices in animal proteins and vegetable oils are reshaping consumer budgets and dietary patterns across Asia. Global markets have seen historic rallies in meat prices amid tight supplies, shifting consumption patterns, and robust demand recovery in developed regions—trends that transmit rapidly into Asia’s urban food baskets, even when local price indices diverge. Dairy products have also shown upward pressure in 2025. Milk powders, butter, and cheese are more expensive due to constrained production in key exporting countries, rising feed costs, and disease outbreaks that affect herd productivity. Labour, cold chain logistics, and energy costs have also contributed to higher dairy prices, making inflation in this category increasingly persistent.Global Meat Prices: Record Levels and Structural DriversThe current surge in global meat prices to record levels is a complex phenomenon, rooted in a series of interconnected events and persistent market pressures. As of October 2025, the FAO Meat Price Index has not only continued its upward climb but has set new all-time highs, reflecting a substantial year-over-year increase. Beef prices, in particular, have reached levels not seen in over six decades, with producer prices hitting approximately $6.9 per kilogram in September 2025.The primary catalyst for this unprecedented rally is the severe contraction of cattle herds globally. The critical shortage stems from prolonged and widespread droughts that have decimated pasture quality, forcing ranchers to incur higher feed costs or liquidate their herds. Consequently, U.S. slaughter rates have declined significantly, with forecasts predicting a substantial drop in fed cattle slaughter for 2025. Efforts to rebuild herds are hampered by strong feeder cattle prices, which incentivize producers to sell rather than retain heifers for breeding.Beyond the U.S., stringent animal welfare regulations in the European Union and disease outbreaks—such as the New World Screwworm in Mexico—have further constrained global beef supplies. Simultaneously, sheep-meat prices have also been on a consistent upward trend, driven by tight export supplies from Oceania, with a greater volume being directed to high-value markets like the United Kingdom and the United States. Experts anticipate these prices will continue to climb, potentially peaking in 2026. This confluence of supply-side shocks has globalized protein inflation, exerting a disproportionate impact on Asian urban food baskets where imported and high-value meats are a growing dietary component.Asia’s Urban Protein ChallengeIn Asia, the share of animal proteins in the average urban diet continues to grow with rising incomes. Poultry, eggs, and milk are staples for urban households, but production costs are climbing. Feed price volatility—driven by maize and soy price swings—remains the largest driver, accounting for up to 70 per cent of poultry and aquaculture production costs. Labour and disease management add further pressure: avian influenza outbreaks, porcine epidemic cycles, and stricter veterinary compliance regulations inflate the cost base, limiting producers’ ability to absorb shocks. Aquaculture, once Asia’s low-cost protein solution, is also squeezed. Rising feed costs, higher environmental compliance expenses, and climate-induced pond management challenges are forcing producers to pass costs directly to consumers.Vegetable oils constitute another inflationary pinch point. Prices for palm, soy, rapeseed, and sunflower oils have remained elevated in 2025 due to adverse weather events, lower-than-expected yields in major producing regions, and sustained import demand from China and Europe. These oils form the backbone of Southeast Asian cooking, particularly in processed foods, street food preparation, and restaurant kitchens. Even in countries where staple cereals or vegetables remain cheap, higher edible oil prices transmit through household budgets, raising the real cost of typical meals. Rising Costs, Shifting AffordabilityThe combined effect is that the real cost of nutrition has shifted upward. Families may still meet caloric needs with rice, noodles, or vegetables, but the affordability of protein-rich and oil-intensive diets—central to urban eating patterns—is declining. Inflation is now concentrated in categories that matter most to health, nutrition, and social stability, rather than staples alone.This shift also has broader policy and social implications. Governments can stockpile grains or subsidize cereals, but they have far less control over protein markets and edible oil supply chains, which are globally integrated and more sensitive to shocks. As a result, Asia faces a new type of food inflation: one that is less visible in headline cereal prices but more felt in kitchens, restaurants, and across urban diets.In short, the food inflation story in Asia has evolved. Cheap staples can no longer mask the rising cost of proteins and oils. For households, this means diets are becoming more expensive even when staples are stable. For policymakers, it signals that traditional interventions focused on grains will be insufficient: managing inflation now requires attention to proteins, fats, and the energy-intensive infrastructure that delivers them to tables across the region. Input Costs and the Hidden Inflation Engine Consumer food prices reveal only the surface of Asia’s inflation challenge. Beneath the market stall, a deeper set of cost pressures — fertilisers, energy, labour, and climate risk premiums — have become the structural engine driving persistent inflation even when headline commodity markets appear muted.FAO data through 2025 shows this complexity clearly. Global food prices as measured by the FAO Food Price Index have oscillated throughout the year, rising on the back of meat, dairy, sugar and vegetable oils, even as cereal and staple grain prices softened. In June 2025, the FAO Food Price Index edged up 0.5 percent from May, with higher meat, dairy and vegetable oil prices more than offsetting declines in cereals and sugar. The cereal price index fell 1.5 percent that month amid abundant maize supplies from Argentina and Brazil, yet the broader index remained elevated compared with year‑ago levels.Earlier in the year, FAO reporting showed the index climbing in February 2025, propelled by sharper rises in sugar, dairy and vegetable oils. The vegetable oil index in particular was nearly 29 percent higher than the previous year, mirroring global import demand and biodiesel blending incentives, even as rice and cereal values lagged. These diverging sub‑indices highlight a key structural shift: inflation is increasingly driven by energy‑intensive and processing‑linked food categories, not simply staples.Fertiliser markets exemplify the hidden inflation dynamic. Even as global grain prices have softened, fertiliser use and prices remain volatile. Recent FAO analyses point to a rebound in global fertiliser consumption in 2024–25, led by high nitrogen and potash demand, and rising costs due to energy market volatility and supply disruptions. Nitrogen and phosphate prices climbed more than 20 percent in 2025, raising concerns about input affordability and placing pressure on farmers’ cost structures.These input cost pressures are structural. Fertiliser affordability is intimately tied to energy markets — particularly natural gas prices, which serve as a key feedstock for nitrogen production. Even as crude oil prices showed volatility in 2025, geopolitical risks — notably tensions in the Middle East and the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz for urea and LNG transport — heightened the risk premia in energy‑linked farm inputs, according to global market analysts.Energy and labour cost dynamics amplify the squeeze. As rural workers migrate to urban jobs, farms increasingly rely on mechanisation and energy‑intensive irrigation, which are themselves subject to fluctuating fuel and electricity costs. Groundwater depletion in parts of South and Southeast Asia has made irrigation electricity a persistent structural expense that cannot easily be reversed. At the same time, labour shortages raise wages for both farm crews and skilled operators of precision agriculture systems, which further elevates the baseline cost of production.Climate variability in 2025 has embedded itself into pricing mechanisms rather than acting as an episodic shock. Heatwaves across South and Southeast Asia, droughts in key growing regions, and episodic floods have stressed crops and infrastructure repeatedly within a single season, driving up risk premiums embedded in food supply chains. Mitigating climate risk now requires investment in resilient seed varieties, drought‑tolerant crops, adaptive irrigation systems, and insurance — all of which carry additional cost. These layers of expense accumulate and transmit through to food prices over time, long after headline commodity indices suggest stability.Economists increasingly argue that price volatility in agricultural markets can no longer be understood without integrating climate risk models into risk pricing and supply forecasts, marking a departure from earlier decades when weather was treated as an exogenous shock. In this new regime, climate risk is a cost factor — not an occasional spike — baked into the price of food at every level of the value chain.Taken together, the FAO’s 2025 pricing data indicates why food inflation persists even when headline grain prices are soft: the inflationary drivers have shifted from global commodity markets into domestic production systems and supply chains. Fertiliser costs, energy prices, labour constraints, and climate risk — once peripheral factors — are now central to how food costs are transmitted to consumers.This shift has profound policy implications. Governments that stabilise staple prices through buffer stocks or import controls may still find household food inflation stubborn, because the inflationary pulse has moved into inputs and processing that are less amenable to traditional interventions. In this environment, stable global indices offer reassurance — but not relief. The pressure has not disappeared. It has simply moved closer to home, embedded in the cost structures of farms, factories, and kitchens across Asia. Nutrition, Quality, and Structural Demand Shifts Asia’s food landscape is no longer defined solely by caloric sufficiency. Rising incomes, urbanisation, and changing lifestyles are reshaping dietary patterns, shifting demand toward higher-quality, safer, and more diverse foods. Consumers now prioritise freshness, traceability, and nutritional value, creating a structural pull on supply chains that goes beyond conventional price inflation. High-value products—ranging from protein-rich animal foods to fresh fruit, vegetables, and specialty oils—require modern processing, cold chain logistics, and quality assurance frameworks. Compliance with sanitary and phytosanitary regulations, HACCP certification, and traceability systems adds tangible costs, which are reflected in retail prices. For example, FAO reporting from 2025 indicates that vegetable oils and animal proteins—particularly beef, poultry, eggs, and dairy—remained structurally expensive even as cereals and staples saw moderate price declines. These categories are capital- and labour-intensive, sensitive to feed and energy costs, and vulnerable to disease outbreaks, such as African swine fever and avian influenza, which remain relevant risk factors across Southeast Asia. This trend is further reinforced by the expansion of modern retail formats and e-commerce channels. Supermarkets, cold-chain-enabled delivery services, and online grocery platforms require strict temperature control, packaging standards, and automated tracking systems. While these investments reduce spoilage and improve quality, they also increase the cost of the food that reaches consumers’ plates. Even minimally processed foods now carry “hidden costs” tied to compliance, cold storage, and distribution efficiency—costs that are rising faster than wages in many emerging Asian markets. The welfare implications are uneven. Higher-income households can absorb these costs without compromising nutrition, benefiting from improved food safety, variety, and convenience. Conversely, lower-income households often face difficult trade-offs. Rising costs of proteins, oils, and fortified foods force some families to substitute lower-quality staples or reduce animal-protein intake. FAO studies suggest that even modest increases in meat and dairy prices can shift consumption patterns, particularly in urban centres where staples are less elastic in cost-sensitive diets. Policymakers now confront a dual challenge. On one hand, they must maintain affordability for vulnerable populations to prevent nutritional deficits. On the other, they must avoid policies that suppress structural improvements in food quality, safety, and diversity—developments that are critical for long-term public health and economic resilience. For example, price caps or excessive subsidies on meat or fresh produce may temporarily shield consumers, but they risk discouraging investment in modern production and distribution systems, ultimately limiting access to higher-quality foods over the medium term. In effect, Asia’s food inflation story is increasingly about structural demand shifts rather than supply shocks alone. Rising food bills reflect not just traditional inflation, but the costs of transitioning toward diets that are safer, more nutritious, and traceable. The FAO’s 2025 reports underscore that this trend is broad-based: even when cereal prices are stable or declining, inflation persists in proteins, oils, and processed foods precisely because these segments are at the forefront of modernization and quality improvement. In this evolving landscape, understanding food inflation requires a holistic lens: one that considers production costs, logistics, regulatory compliance, dietary preferences, and socio-economic disparities. Simple measures of calorie affordability no longer capture the full picture. Instead, analysts and policymakers must assess how structural quality improvements interact with income distribution and market dynamics to determine who benefits from—and who is squeezed by—Asia’s end of cheap food. What Comes Next: Strategic Imperatives for Asia The era of cheap food is drawing to a close in Asia, but the transition is not a crisis in the conventional sense. It is a structural transformation driven by the convergence of higher-quality diets, climate-linked production costs, tighter input markets, and the increasing complexity of supply chains. The question now is not whether food prices will rise—they already are—but how governments, agribusinesses, and consumers can navigate this landscape strategically, ensuring affordability, resilience, and long-term growth. Redesign Incentive Structures At the heart of a sustainable food economy lies effective price signaling. Subsidies and price controls can provide temporary relief, but indiscriminate interventions risk distorting investment and supply decisions, especially in sectors like fertilizers, energy-intensive inputs, and high-value proteins. Targeted, temporary measures—directed at vulnerable populations or strategic inputs—can stabilize markets without undermining efficiency. Equally important is accelerating efficiency-enhancing investments across the agricultural value chain. Precision agriculture, AI-driven advisory systems, smart irrigation, resilient seeds, and climate-adaptive fertilizers are no longer optional—they are essential. FAO reports from 2025 indicate that even moderate improvements in nutrient-use efficiency and water management can reduce costs for farmers and, over time, moderate consumer price pressures. By linking these technologies to accessible financing, training, and digital advisory platforms, governments and firms can make resilience economically viable for smallholders while maintaining output growth. Rebalance Trade Policy Short-term measures such as export restrictions or import curbs can smooth volatility but risk long-term market inefficiency. Asia’s governments must navigate a delicate trade-off: safeguarding domestic affordability while remaining integrated into global supply chains that provide scale, resilience, and access to essential commodities. Strategic trade frameworks can offer a solution. These frameworks would combine data-driven monitoring, transparent stock management, calibrated tariffs, and regional coordination to anticipate shocks in proteins, oils, and staples. By aligning trade policy with domestic production realities and market intelligence, countries can protect consumers in the short term while preserving incentives for long-term investment and supply diversification. Embed Climate Risk in Markets Climate variability is no longer an “external shock”; it is now a structural cost factor embedded in production, logistics, and processing. Heatwaves, floods, and droughts in 2025 repeatedly stressed supply chains in Southeast and South Asia, amplifying risk premiums and input costs. Markets and policy must internalize this reality. Climate-adjusted pricing, risk-based insurance, and fiscal tools—such as differentiated subsidies or investment incentives for climate-smart technologies—can align producer behavior with resilience objectives. Integrating climate risk into fertilizer pricing, irrigation investments, crop insurance, and procurement frameworks ensures that adaptation and mitigation are economically rational, rather than optional. Protect Nutrition and Equity Food affordability is no longer just about calories; it is about quality, safety, and diversity. Rising demand for proteins, dairy, oils, and fortified foods increases both production complexity and costs. Blanket subsidies for staples risk preserving caloric intake at the expense of diet quality or sustainable production practices. Targeted nutritional support—such as vouchers, fortified foods, school feeding programs, or protein subsidies—can protect vulnerable populations while maintaining incentives for high-quality, safe, and traceable food production. This dual approach ensures that affordability and quality evolve in tandem, rather than forcing consumers to choose between calories and nutrition. Managing the Transition The structural transition to higher-cost, higher-quality, and more resilient food systems requires strategic foresight. Asia’s agricultural and food sectors are adjusting to tighter margins, evolving dietary expectations, complex risk environments, and persistent input pressures. In this environment, the end of cheap food is not a problem to be solved overnight. It is a transition to a more sophisticated, resilient, and quality-driven food system. Those who adapt—governments designing responsive policies, firms investing in innovation, and households adjusting consumption patterns—will benefit from sustainable growth and reduced vulnerability. Those who fail to recognize the shift risk instability, inequity, and persistent inflation pressures. Asia’s challenge—and opportunity—is clear: to manage rising costs while elevating diet quality, building resilient supply chains, and protecting social cohesion. Success will define the next decade of food security and economic growth across the region. ---- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3494/palm-oil-after-esg-is-golden-crop-losing-its-crown.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3494/palm-oil-after-esg-is-golden-crop-losing-its-crown.html Tue, 23 Dec 2025 17:47:00 +0530 A 2025 Asia round-up on regulation, capital and the re-ordering of the world’s most contested commodity For decades, the ascendancy of palm oil within the pantheon of global vegetable oils seemed nothing short of immutable. Its unmatched land efficiency, coupled with unparalleled versatility, rendered it indispensable—fueling industrial food systems, underpinning the edifice of consumer goods, and more recently, energising biofuel markets. Southeast Asia constructed entire developmental paradigms around this verdant monoculture; India and China wove it seamlessly into their consumption matrices. Multinational corporations, with canny acumen, capitalised on the scale, reaping profits that seemed both inexorable and inexhaustible. Yet, as 2025 draws to a close, palm oil’s indispensability remains uncontested, but the modalities of its dominion have metamorphosed. The commodity, erstwhile governed predominantly by the vagaries of land allocation and price discovery, now finds itself under the aegis of regulation, traceability imperatives, capital discipline, and geopolitical choreography. Demand, though robust and structural, is increasingly contingent upon conditional access; compliance costs have proliferated, and supply chains are inextricably entwined with energy policy. Investors have commenced a meticulous repricing of risk, and regulators wield ESG as both cudgel and compass. This is not a narrative of obsolescence; it is, rather, a tale of a power transition—from hectares to governance, from sheer volume to verifiable authenticity, and from unbridled expansion to judicious credibility. From Golden Crop to Strategic Commodity The global ascendancy of palm oil is explicable, in large measure, by its biological efficiency. The oil palm’s oleaginous productivity per hectare dwarfs that of soy, rapeseed, or sunflower, enabling Indonesia and Malaysia to industrialise agronomy while sustaining burgeoning populations. Malaysia’s contribution, often overshadowed by Indonesia’s sheer volumetric supremacy, was seminal. The nation architected the institutional scaffolding of the industry: sophisticated plantation science, advanced refining and oleochemical capacity, futures markets, and stringent quality control systems. By the mid-2010s, Malaysia had pivoted decisively from mere land expansion to enhanced productivity and downstream value creation—a strategic recalibration that would later prove prescient. However, this ascendancy was not without profound environmental and social externalities. Plantation proliferation catalysed deforestation, peatland degradation, and socio-economic dislocations, occasionally precipitating community conflicts. Initially illuminated by NGOs, these challenges were amplified by consumer advocacy and shareholder activism, ultimately codified within regulatory frameworks. By 2025, the appraisal of palm oil transcended metrics of output and cost; it had become a crucible for ESG governance, regulatory fidelity, and geopolitical sagacity. ESG Crosses the Rubicon and Malaysia’s Strategic Advantage The inflection point of the decade materialised when sustainability transcended voluntarism to become a statutory imperative. The European Union’s Regulation on Deforestation-free Products (EUDR), inaugurated in 2023 and deferred in late 2025, profoundly recalibrated palm oil supply chain architecture. Though the deferral mitigated immediacy, the underlying objective remained incontrovertible: to preclude commodities implicated in deforestation from ingress into one of the world’s most consequential consumer markets. Palm oil, alongside selected derivatives—crude oil, kernel oil, and palm-derived chemicals—fell squarely within the regulation’s ambit. For multinational procurers, the implication was unequivocal: opacity was untenable. Commodities must be traceable to their point of origin, verified as legally produced, and demonstrably insulated from deforestation and ecological degradation. Pledges devoid of evidentiary substantiation were, quite simply, insufficient. Malaysia, presciently, seized upon this regulatory milieu, positioning itself as a low-risk, compliant supplier. The nation’s National Traceability System—an integration of the e-Malaysian Sustainable Palm Oil platform, GeoSawit, and the Sawit Intelligent Management System—consolidates certification data, geolocation coordinates, and verified transaction records, enabling EUDR-relevant intelligence to be centrally accessed and disseminated to EU partners. By these measures, Malaysia emerges as one of the most prepared producer countries, ensuring smallholders are neither marginalised nor excluded due to onerous compliance thresholds. Indonesia, by contrast, accentuated sovereignty and domestic absorption through energy policy, revealing a bifurcation in strategic paradigms: Malaysia foregrounded compliance and transparency; Indonesia, volume-led energy optimisation. Traceability as a Balance-Sheet Variable By 2025, traceability had transcended reputational optics to become a quantifiable balance-sheet consideration. Corporations sourcing palm oil across packaged foods, personal care, and industrial applications faced intensifying scrutiny—not only from civil society or consumers, but increasingly from investors, credit agencies, and insurers. Land-use and biodiversity risk became measurable, incorporated into credit decisions, equity analyses, and ESG-linked investment frameworks. Platforms such as Morningstar Sustainalytics furnished investors with insights into company deforestation-management programmes, grievance mechanisms, and auditing efficacy. The findings revealed heterogeneity: while many corporations maintained formal protocols, traceability often concluded at the mill rather than the plantation; grievance systems were inconsistently implemented, and audit rigor varied. Exemplars—Unilever, Danone, and Colgate-Palmolive—invested in plantation-level verification, supplier engagement, and transparent reporting. In 2025, traceability ceased to be a mere compliance cost; it was a licence to operate and a strategic differentiator. Why Deforestation Persists Despite decades of advocacy, corporate commitments, and regulatory initiatives, deforestation associated with palm oil expansion endures. The sector’s scale renders it highly visible within ESG discourses. Since the mid-2000s, production has more than doubled, surpassing 78 million tonnes by the mid-2020s. Expansion, particularly in Indonesia, continues to impinge upon forested tracts, exacerbated by fragmented land tenure, smallholder pressures, and uneven local enforcement. Forest clearance, accelerating after periods of relative stabilisation, underscores the fragility of prior progress. With demand projected to multiply several-fold by mid-century, pressures on forest ecosystems will intensify unless sustainable intensification, yield enhancement, and smallholder integration are prioritised. Failure to reverse these trends imperils climate targets and supply chain stability alike. Investors Reprice Land-Use Risk Until recently, corporate linkages to deforestation were largely reputational. By 2025, financial consequences crystallised. Investors recalibrated portfolios to account for regulatory risk, supply chain disruption, and reputational exposure. Corporations with robust, traceable supply chains—particularly in Malaysia—garnered competitive advantage. Estate-based models, cooperative smallholder programmes, and national certification systems underpinned compliance at scale. Anti-deforestation programmes now functioned dually: regulatory shields and risk mitigants. They reduce the probability of shipment rejection, contractual disruption, or exclusion from regulated markets. In a tightening ESG milieu, corporations lacking rigorous programmes faced escalating operational and financial vulnerability. Indonesia’s Biodiesel Pivot and Smallholder Dynamics While ESG reshaped demand, energy policy and production structures redefined supply. Indonesia, the world’s premier palm oil producer, accounted for approximately 55 per cent of global output in 2025. Its aggressive biodiesel expansion redirected millions of tonnes of crude palm oil away from exports, delivering domestic benefits: diminished fuel imports, stabilised farmer income, and political capital in rural constituencies. For global markets, however, this constricted supply, elevated price floors, and intensified volatility. The production landscape is further complicated by smallholders, who constitute nearly half of output yet exhibit yields of merely two to three tonnes per hectare—substantially lower than the six to eight tonnes typical of larger estates. The yield disparity, coupled with restricted access to finance, technology, and certification mechanisms, introduces material risks to both smallholder livelihoods and national competitiveness. Multinational buyers and investors must factor this heterogeneity into assessments of supply reliability and compliance risk. Export Flows, Trade, and Price Dynamics in 2025 Indonesian palm oil maintained global competitiveness in 2025, underpinned by robust export flows and new trade arrangements, including a free trade pact with the Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Malaysia’s exports rose 7.7 per cent month-on-month to 1.42 million tonnes in September, marking the strongest monthly performance in nearly a year, according to the Malaysian Palm Oil Council (MPOC). Gains were driven by most key regions, excluding EU27 and Asia-Pacific. South Asia, notably India, absorbed 312,000 tonnes—the highest level in 11 months. Exports to Sub-Saharan Africa, MENA, the Americas, and Central Asia also expanded appreciably. Despite export growth, inventories in Malaysia climbed to 2.36 million tonnes, the highest in 22 months, reflecting normalised domestic consumption after a record August of 499,000 tonnes. Imports increased by 20,000 tonnes, further swelling stocks. Palm oil reclaimed a premium over soybean oil in global markets. By mid-October, it traded $ 42 per tonne above soybean oil in Europe and $ 26 higher in India. The brief April–September discount reversed partly due to speculation surrounding Indonesia’s potential B50 biodiesel mandate, which would require an estimated 17 million tonnes of palm oil—3 million tonnes more than the existing B40 mandate—absorbing roughly 35 per cent of domestic output and leaving about 22 million tonnes for export. Global vegetable oil dynamics were also affected by constrained soybean and sunflower oil supplies. US and Brazilian soybean oil exports were projected to decline 41 per cent year-on-year, while Argentina’s temporary export tax exemption triggered forward sales to China, curtailing local crushing activity. Sunflower oil prices remained elevated, trading $ 75 above palm oil and $ 100 above soybean oil in Europe. The ongoing US–China trade conflict further accentuated supply uncertainty. MPOC forecasted continued firmness in vegetable oil prices, with palm oil expected to sustain levels above RM4,400 per tonne, although market sentiment remained circumspect due to crude oil volatility, inventories in key markets, and geopolitical tension. Investor Flows: Singapore Mid-Cap Initiative Capital markets, too, were active arbiters of sectoral trajectories. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) allocated USD5 billion to fund managers to seed investments in promising mid-cap companies, opening a conduit for capital into Southeast Asian agribusiness equities, including palm oil-related stocks. On 6 October, Fullerton Fund Management launched Fullerton Singapore Value-Up, the first retail fund under the MAS programme, investing across small-, mid-, and large-cap Singapore-listed securities. Although specific counters were undisclosed, UOB Kay Hian and Maybank Research projected that First Resources and Golden Agri-Resources would attract significant allocation. First Resources is a constituent of the iEdge Singapore Next 50 indexes, which track the largest 50 stocks by market capitalisation and liquidity after excluding the 30 blue-chip Straits Times Index components. Investors may also access palm oil exposure via Wilmar International, whose diversified portfolio encompasses cultivation, processing, and downstream integration. Collectively, these initiatives underscore the evolving interplay between regulatory compliance, supply-side dynamics, and financial capital in shaping the sector’s trajectory. Trade, Diplomacy, and Fragmentation By 2025, the geopolitics of palm oil had become a complex lattice of strategic alignments, regulatory signalling, and market-driven diplomacy. The commodity was no longer merely a trade good; it had become an instrument of soft power and economic leverage. Indonesia, cognizant of the increasing stringency of ESG-led frameworks in Western markets, consciously pivoted toward alternative trading partners less encumbered by regulatory rigor. The Russia-led Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) emerged as a natural conduit for Jakarta, offering not only expanded market access but also alignment with nations prioritising volume and energy security over deforestation compliance. This move, while pragmatic, reflected a broader Indonesian strategy: to diversify market dependency, reduce exposure to punitive ESG regimes, and safeguard domestic policy autonomy, particularly for its biodiesel mandates. Meanwhile, China deepened its engagement with ASEAN producers through bilateral and regional sustainability frameworks that, while aligned with some ESG principles, emphasised pragmatism, market access, and domestic food security over the stringent verifications required in Europe. Beijing’s approach facilitated preferential supply agreements, capacity-building programmes, and technical partnerships, reinforcing its position as a reliable purchaser even when Western markets imposed conditionality. In effect, China was cultivating a parallel governance ecosystem, one that harmonised sustainability ambitions with commercial expediency and regional diplomacy. Malaysia, by contrast, exercised a strategy of calibrated optionality. Kuala Lumpur maintained robust engagement with Europe through the National Traceability System, signalling compliance and reliability to ESG-conscious markets. Simultaneously, it expanded trade with India, the Middle East, and select premium Asian markets, leveraging both volume and differentiated quality to maximise revenue capture. By maintaining dual-track diplomacy—regulatory alignment on one hand and diversified market cultivation on the other—Malaysia positioned itself as a stabilising hub in an increasingly fragmented global palm oil system. Trade flows in 2025 increasingly mirrored governance credibility and regulatory compliance rather than mere production scale. Buyers and investors were willing to pay premiums for traceable, verified supply, while markets perceived as opaque or non-compliant faced exclusion or price discounts. The result was a discernible segmentation of the global palm oil market: Europe and other ESG-driven markets demanded documented compliance; Asia, the Middle East, and parts of Africa prioritised reliability, cost, and availability, with flexibility on verification protocols. In this context, trade negotiations, bilateral agreements, and regional alliances were no longer ancillary; they were central to the strategic calculus of producers, exporters, and financiers. Ultimately, 2025 crystallised a geopolitical realignment in which the governance architecture of production—traceability systems, certification frameworks, and ESG adherence—became as critical as volume and price. Palm oil diplomacy had transformed from a commodity-driven exercise into a multidimensional contest of regulatory compliance, market access, and strategic hedging, where producers and consumers alike navigated a terrain defined as much by geopolitics as by supply and demand. The 2025 Inflection Point The year 2025 crystallised a structural inflection in the global palm oil sector, marking a decisive transition from a volume-centric commodity paradigm to a governance- and compliance-driven ecosystem. Several concurrent developments coalesced to create a new hierarchy in which risk management, regulatory adherence, and strategic market positioning became paramount determinants of success. Foremost among these developments was the advance of the European Union’s Regulation on Deforestation-free Products (EUDR) toward formal enforcement. While the regulation’s compliance timeline was deferred, the underlying imperative remained unambiguous: companies sourcing palm oil and related commodities must demonstrate traceable, deforestation-free supply chains. This regulatory shift transformed what had been largely voluntary sustainability commitments into non-negotiable operational requirements, compelling corporations to invest in verification systems, engage smallholders, and enhance plantation-level transparency. Failure to comply now carried not only reputational risk but the tangible prospect of market exclusion from one of the largest consumer blocs in the world. Simultaneously, traceability emerged as a critical commercial and strategic variable. Corporations with robust, transparent systems could command premiums, reassure investors, and secure long-term contracts, whereas opaque supply chains faced escalating scrutiny. Malaysia’s integrated traceability framework, underpinned by the National Traceability System, positioned the nation advantageously, allowing it to capture value in premium markets and establish itself as a benchmark for ESG-aligned supply. On the supply side, Indonesia’s biodiesel mandate—particularly the potential B50 programme—substantially tightened exportable volumes. By redirecting millions of tonnes of palm oil to domestic biofuel blending, Jakarta effectively altered global supply-demand balances, introducing volatility and reinforcing price floors. The policy simultaneously underscored the strategic interplay between domestic energy security, rural political considerations, and international trade, highlighting the multifaceted levers that now influence market dynamics. Capital flows further accentuated the structural pivot. The Monetary Authority of Singapore’s $5 billion mid-cap investment initiative and subsequent fund launches, including Fullerton Singapore Value-Up, enhanced liquidity and investor engagement in palm oil equities, particularly for companies demonstrating regulatory compliance, governance robustness, and operational scalability. Singaporean capital thus became an active arbiter of sectoral trajectory, incentivising transparency and risk mitigation alongside traditional commercial metrics. Taken together, these forces crystallised a paradigm shift. The sector no longer operates purely on supply and demand fundamentals; market leadership is now contingent on a confluence of regulatory compliance, traceable and resilient supply chains, capital access, and strategic diplomatic positioning. Malaysia’s emphasis on governance and traceability, Indonesia’s energy-driven production strategy, and Singapore’s investment facilitation collectively signal that the hierarchy of winners and laggards is defined as much by institutional sophistication and market foresight as by hectares under cultivation or tonnage produced. In essence, 2025 represents a structural inflection point where risk, governance, and access have supplanted volume as the primary arbiters of sectoral pre-eminence. The golden crop retains its centrality in global food and energy systems, but its stewardship is now measured not merely in production metrics, but in the rigour of its governance, the transparency of its supply chain, and the agility of its market and investment strategies. Conditional Leadership Palm oil retained its crown in 2025—but with a crucial caveat: the sovereignty of this dominion is now conditional. The commodity’s indispensability remains, yet supremacy must be earned through governance, traceability, policy foresight, and strategic alignment. Malaysia exemplifies conditional resilience via compliance, integration, and premiumisation. Indonesia demonstrates the benefits—and perils—of volume-led energy policy and smallholder reliance. Singapore’s investor mobilisation illustrates that financial capital is an increasingly potent arbiter of the sector’s future. In a post-ESG, post-2025 world, palm oil’s legitimacy is adjudicated not by hectares, yields, or sheer tonnage, but by proof of governance, verifiable traceability, sustainability credentials, and alignment with the exigencies of investors and regulators. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3493/asias-seafood-exports-in-2025-tariffs-trade-deals-and-market-shifts.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3493/asias-seafood-exports-in-2025-tariffs-trade-deals-and-market-shifts.html Tue, 23 Dec 2025 17:35:11 +0530 In 2025, Asian seafood exporters operated in an increasingly complex global trade architecture. The combined effects of tariffs imposed by the United States and European Union, alongside emerging free trade agreements such as CEPA and CETA, created both constraints and opportunities for the region’s leading producers. Unlike previous periods of growth, which relied primarily on volume expansion, the defining feature of 2025 was strategic adjustment. Exporters leveraged certification, vertical integration, and market diversification to sustain revenue and stabilize margins. This article examines the quantitative and structural underpinnings of Asian seafood performance in 2025, with a focus on India, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Thailand, highlighting revenue resilience, supply chain efficiencies, and policy interventions. It identifies winners and underperformers and explores the mechanisms through which exporters mitigated trade and operational risks. Tariff Pressures: Country-Wise Quantification In India, shrimp and cuttlefish exports were affected by U.S. tariffs ranging between 10 and 15 percent on processed shrimp. Despite a modest four percent decline in volume, totaling 370,000 metric tonnes, export value fell only 1.5 percent, demonstrating the mitigating effect of premiumization. Indian exporters increasingly focused on high-quality, value-added products while CEPA agreements with GCC countries partially offset U.S. market constraints. The EU remained an important secondary market, where tariffs were stable, though sustainability mandates favored ASC and MSC-certified products. Government-backed export subsidies and cold-chain incentives, totaling roughly $80 million, further strengthened competitiveness. Vietnam’s seafood sector illustrates how targeted strategies can offset international trade pressures. Shrimp continued to dominate the product structure, generating nearly $410 million in September, which brought the nine-month export value to over $3.38 billion—a 20.3 percent increase year-on-year. Pangasius also recorded strong performance, with September turnover approaching $191 million and total exports exceeding $1.6 billion over nine months, up almost ten percent. The resurgence of demand from China, the U.S., Japan, and Middle Eastern markets reinforced Vietnam’s position as a leading global supplier of both freshwater and marine seafood. Other segments also performed well: marine fish exports grew to $1.61 billion (+18.5 per cent), squid and octopus reached $550 million (+18.7 per cent), and shelled mollusks rose more than 30 to $192 million. Tuna exports, however, slightly declined to $705 million (-3.2 per cent), reflecting intensified competition in the oceanic fish segment. The U.S. market showed slower growth for Vietnam, with September exports down more than six percent. Nonetheless, nine-month totals still rose 6.8 percent to $1.41 billion. Challenges such as anti-dumping and countervailing duties, along with stringent MMPA requirements, continue to constrain U.S.-bound shipments. China and Hong Kong emerged as dominant markets, with nine-month exports reaching $1.76 billion (+32.1 per cent), benefiting from strong demand and favorable logistics. Japan and the EU maintained steady growth at $1.27 billion (+15.6 per cent) and $885 million (+13.3 per cent), respectively, while South Korea emerged as a breakout market with nearly 50 per cent growth in September and a 13 per cent increase over nine months. ASEAN and Middle Eastern markets also expanded, recording $536 million (+23.3 per cent) and $295 million (+7.6 per cent), respectively, with the Middle East seeing more than 50 percent growth in September alone. Indonesia’s seafood sector leveraged CEPA agreements with GCC countries to expand market access for shrimp and tuna. Customs duty reductions of 3–5 percent directly improved gross margins for exporters targeting Gulf markets. By the end of 2025, GCC markets accounted for nearly 30 percent of Indonesia’s shrimp and tuna export value, a marked diversification from traditional U.S. and EU destinations. Investment in refrigerated shipping increased capacity by 12 percent year-on-year, enabling exporters to maintain product quality, meet CEPA compliance requirements, and improve realized margins by 7–10 per cent. Thailand focused on high-value shrimp and squid, using CETA provisions to facilitate faster EU customs clearance, reducing compliance costs by an estimated seven percent. Cold-chain adoption reached 70 percent for premium products, ensuring consistent quality for EU and Japanese markets.  The country occupied a structurally distinct position within Asia’s seafood economy in 2025—less exposed to sudden market shocks and more anchored in processing-led value creation. Total fishery exports were valued at approximately $7 billion, while imports stood near US$5 billion, reflecting Thailand’s dual role as both a processing hub and a trading intermediary within global seafood flows. Japan remained Thailand’s most important destination, accounting for roughly one-third of export value, followed by Europe at just over one-fifth, and the United States at around 16 per cent. This market mix insulated Thailand from excessive dependence on any single trade corridor, particularly at a time when U.S. regulatory scrutiny intensified across the region.   Market Diversification and Revenue Stability Revenue diversification proved crucial for mitigating tariff and market risks. India derived 38 percent of export revenue from the U.S., 27 percent from the EU, and 15 percent from GCC countries, illustrating a portfolio approach that cushioned U.S. tariff impacts. Vietnam’s revenue was 32 percent from the U.S., 40 percent from the EU, and 10 percent from GCC markets, with EU growth largely driven by certification and premiumization. Indonesia relied on 20 percent from the U.S., 25 percent from the EU, and 30 percent from GCC markets, demonstrating a deliberate CEPA-driven diversification strategy. Thailand sourced 28 percent of revenue from the U.S., 35 percent from the EU, and 12 percent from GCC markets, relying on premium frozen products to maintain margins despite modest volume growth. Countries with multi-market exposure experienced less than three percent year-on-year revenue variation, while single-market-reliant exporters faced fluctuations of six to seven percent. Certification and value-added products enabled India and Vietnam to absorb U.S. tariff pressures, Indonesia’s GCC expansion cushioned revenue variability, and Thailand’s focus on premium EU/Japan markets stabilized returns. Revenue, Volume, and Commodity Performance Export value growth across the four leading countries was moderate but consistent. India achieved $7.8 billion in shrimp and cuttlefish exports, a four percent increase driven by premiumization, CEPA market access, and traceability initiatives. Vietnam’s nine-month exports surpassed $8.3 billion, reflecting strong performance in shrimp, pangasius, marine fish, and mollusks. Indonesia reached $4.5 billion (+3 per cent), supported by CEPA access and selective premium exports, while Thailand achieved $6.0 billion (+2 per cent), led by premium shrimp and squid targeting EU and Japanese markets. Certification, traceability, and vertical integration contributed an estimated 3–5 percent of revenue growth, offsetting tariff pressures. Commodity-grade exports without value addition, particularly to the U.S., underperformed, reinforcing the premiumization imperative. Commodity price dynamics mirrored these strategies. Export-grade shrimp from India, Vietnam, and Thailand stabilized at $12–13 per kilogram, with premium segments commanding 5–10 percent higher prices. Pangasius from Vietnam ranged $3.8–4.2 per kilogram, with certified fillets averaging $4.5 per kilogram. Tuna from Indonesia reached $6–6.5 per kilogram, with supply chain optimization contributing a 3–4 percent improvement in realized price. Thailand’s squid exports realized $10–11 per kilogram, with premium frozen products yielding additional margins. These trends underscore the importance of B2B investment in cold-chain, certification, and value-added processing in preserving price resilience. Supply Chain Sophistication: Cold-Chain and Vertical Integration Efficient supply chains proved decisive. In India, 45 percent of shrimp exports relied on company-owned cold storage, 30 percent on outsourced facilities, and 15–20 percent on rented units. Vertical integration reduced transaction costs by 5–8 percent and cut delivery delays by 15 percent. In Vietnam, 60 percent of pangasius exports passed through certified cold-chain facilities, enabling compliance with EU Green Fisheries regulations and higher realized prices. Indonesia expanded refrigerated shipping by 12 percent YOY, supporting margin improvements of 7–10 percent. Thailand’s 70 percent cold-chain adoption for high-value shrimp, combined with process efficiency, reinforced operational resilience. Companies managing production, processing, and logistics internally responded faster to tariff and compliance shifts, demonstrating the advantage of vertical integration in mitigating operational risk. Structural Lessons from 2025 Certification and traceability were decisive, with ASC/MSC/HACCP-compliant producers outperforming peers by 5–12 percent in realized export prices. Market diversification reduced volatility, with multi-market-reliant countries experiencing ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3492/asia-agriculture-2025-climate-technology-and-resilience.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3492/asia-agriculture-2025-climate-technology-and-resilience.html Tue, 23 Dec 2025 17:25:37 +0530 2025 marked a pivotal year for agriculture across Asia. Headlines captured extreme weather events, AI-driven agritech deployments, and climate-smart policy initiatives, yet beneath the surface, the region’s agricultural landscape quietly evolved. The sector is moving from reactive interventions to embedding resilience across systems, blending technology, policy innovation, and climate-smart practices to withstand unprecedented uncertainty. Across Asia, nearly half of agricultural production remains exposed to climate hazards. Cyclones, floods, and prolonged droughts disrupted key farming regions, from the rice belts of Southeast Asia to rainfed areas in South Asia. Cyclone Ditwah, for example, struck Sri Lanka in late 2025, devastating hundreds of thousands of hectares, displacing millions, and creating ripple effects in food prices, supply chains, and rural incomes. Such events are increasingly expected variables, forcing governments, firms, and farmers to rethink risk, finance, and resilience. Beyond immediate shocks, persistent weather volatility erodes predictability, undermines smallholder decision-making, and increases financial exposure. Against this backdrop, Asia’s agriculture is quietly pivoting toward anticipatory, climate-smart strategies that combine technology, finance, and policy to reduce vulnerability and enhance food security. Policy Evolution: From Concept to Action In 2025, several APAC countries moved beyond conceptual climate adaptation policies to operational programs. South Asia launched national climate adaptation atlases linking meteorological projections with agronomic and socioeconomic data, enabling governments to prioritize interventions based on localized risk profiles. Regional cooperation progressed notably. The ASEAN Climate Resilience Network implemented joint projects in climate-smart agriculture, including shared weather data platforms and cross-border pilot programs in precision irrigation and soil management. Southeast Asia also witnessed the scaling of climate-smart agriculture frameworks, integrating resilience measures into national planning and budget cycles. Governments increasingly tie climate adaptation to economic competitiveness. Countries implementing predictive, data-driven approaches are better positioned to access global markets, attract international finance, and partner in technology deployment. This marks a structural shift in agricultural governance, where climate adaptation is embedded as a core economic priority rather than a supplementary policy. Technology at the Core: AI, Data, and Agritech Ecosystems Technology transitioned from experimental pilot programs to operational infrastructure in 2025. Artificial intelligence, satellite imagery, and remote sensing became integral to decision-making at farm, regional, and national levels. Singapore-based and regional startups scaled AI-powered platforms to optimize irrigation, forecast yields, monitor pests, and provide real-time weather intelligence. Farmers now have predictive tools that were previously accessible only to large-scale operations. In India, AI-driven platforms enabled precise nutrient management, automated irrigation scheduling, and early pest detection, reducing losses and improving input efficiency. Innovation ecosystems matured across APAC. Accelerators in Singapore, Thailand, and Indonesia connected startups, research institutions, and financial services providers, nurturing ventures in sustainable inputs, precision agriculture, and supply-chain traceability. By embedding technology into governance and finance frameworks, Asia is laying the foundation for scalable climate-smart agriculture that benefits both smallholders and commercial producers. Climate and Food Safety: Emerging Challenges Climate variability increasingly affects food safety. Rising temperatures, erratic rainfall, and water scarcity alter microbial dynamics, increase mycotoxin risk, and disrupt post-harvest storage conditions. Regulatory adaptation became central to maintaining food security. As Sarah Cahill, Codex Secretary, and Markus Lipp, Senior Food Safety Officer, FAO explains: "Changing climate is also impacting food safety and this is also impacting the standard setting work of Codex. For example, the Codex Committee on Contaminants in Food (CCCF) elaborated and CAC47 adopted the Code of practice for the prevention or reduction of ciguatera poisoning, in response to the evolving nature of this issue, which is related to climate factors. The Codex Committee on Food Hygiene developed and CAC46 adopted Guidelines for the safe use and reuse of water in food production and processing in response to Members concerns about the need to ensure that in the context of water resource challenges, the safety of food was not negatively impacted. There is a continued emphasis, particularly within CCCF, on the issue of mycotoxins, the threat of which is evolving and possibly expanding as climate factors change." Countries across Asia integrated climate intelligence into inspection systems and food safety protocols to mitigate risk, ensuring that resilience does not compromise quality or trade compliance. Climate and Food Security: Hydroponics and Controlled Environments Controlled environment agriculture, including hydroponics and vertical farming, scaled rapidly across India and Southeast Asia in 2025, mitigating risks from erratic rainfall, droughts, and extreme weather. Pravin Patel, Founder of Brio Hydroponics, highlights the potential: "India’s agricultural sector faces unprecedented challenges from climate volatility, with erratic rainfall, prolonged droughts, and extreme weather disrupting traditional farming cycles. Over half of Indian farmers depend entirely on rain-fed agriculture, making them highly vulnerable. Controlled Environment Agriculture systems like Unnati’s hydroponics offer a solution, creating fully controlled growing environments that eliminate weather dependency and enable consistent, year-round production." These systems stabilize production, optimize resource use, and reduce climate risk. While current adoption is concentrated on high-value crops, pilot programs are extending controlled environment cultivation to staples, demonstrating the potential to enhance broader food security. Seafood and Fisheries: Data-Driven Management and Trade Competitiveness The fisheries sector witnessed headline-making reforms in 2025. India completed the MFC 2025 fisheries census, providing the first comprehensive assessment of fleet health, fishing capacity, and ecosystem impact. George Kurian, Minister of State for Minority Affairs, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Government of India, emphasizes: "International markets like the EU, US, and Japan demand proof of sustainability and traceability. The MFC 2025 provides the foundation for meeting these expectations. This Census is the foundational layer for a sustainable ecosystem-based fisheries management plan. It gives us a complete, scientifically-consolidated assessment of our fleet’s health and capacity." The initiative strengthens ecosystem-based management and aligns seafood production with global sustainability standards, enhancing export competitiveness. Rice Resilience: Lessons for Rainfed Systems Rainfed rice areas remain among the most climate-exposed agricultural systems. Climate shocks disproportionately affect yields, particularly in lowlands. Dr. Ismail Abdelbagi, Principal Scientist and Regional Representative for Africa at IRRI, notes: "Climate shocks are hitting rice hardest in rainfed lowlands, where 80 per cent of Africa’s farmers operate. How close are we to a breakthrough in drought- and heat-resilient varieties that can stabilize yields without costly irrigation infrastructure? Rainfed rice areas in Africa have not been given sufficient attention, and farmers still use traditional tools and technologies. This is contrary to progress in Asia, where rainfed areas have been transformed into productive lands with high and stable yields. The transformation became feasible after introducing varieties tolerant to drought, floods, and salt stress, coupled with modern production technologies, water management, fertilizer use, mechanized farming, and other suitable practices, increasing productivity and incomes for smallholders." This highlights the importance of combining genetic improvements, production technology, and agronomic practices to transform vulnerable systems into resilient landscapes. Carbon, Regeneration, and Climate Finance Regenerative and carbon-focused interventions expanded significantly in 2025. Biochar projects, combining carbon sequestration with soil fertility improvements, emerged as high-value initiatives. Dr. Nripanka Das, Subject Matter Expert in Carbon Projects (UAE), explains: "Unlike forestry or renewable projects, biochar delivers a dual benefit: carbon sequestration and soil regeneration. This creates 'stacked benefits'—carbon credits, improved yields, reduced fertilizer use, enhanced water retention, and often waste management solutions. Financially, a well-designed biochar project can generate over $1,000 per hectare annually when combining carbon and agricultural returns, while diversifying revenue and reducing risk—making it highly attractive for institutional investors." Blue carbon initiatives also gained traction. Brian Tsuyoshi Takeda, CEO & Co-Founder of Restorae, observes: "Voluntary carbon markets in Japan are already ready for kelp-based credits. J-Blue Credits, generated from kelp restoration, have been transacting for years at prices exceeding $400 per ton—more than ten times the price of traditional voluntary carbon credits globally." These approaches demonstrate how climate-smart practices can generate measurable environmental and financial returns while enhancing resilience. Financing Resilience: Opportunities and Bottlenecks Access to climate finance remains critical for scaling adaptation. Platforms supporting banks, microfinance institutions, and insurers expanded in 2025 to offer bundled climate-smart products combining credit, insurance, and solar-powered irrigation. Dr. Godefroy Grosjean, Co-lead of CGIAR’s Hub for Sustainable Finance (ImpactSF) and Ena Derenoncourt, Senior Officer at the Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT and ACT-H Project Lead highlight: "ImpactSF helps financial institutions design climate-smart, bankable products that reduce risk and deliver real impact for farmers. By combining capacity building, tools, and pipeline strengthening, it supports banks, MFIs, and insurers to create bundled credit, insurance, and solar-powered irrigation solutions. Using data from the ImpactSF Analyzer and a value-chain approach, it scales finance in priority sectors like horticulture and livestock while ensuring measurable outcomes in resilience, productivity, and gender inclusion." Data-driven climate finance is increasingly linking risk mitigation, sustainability, and measurable impact, expanding opportunities for smallholders. Trade and Market Resilience Regional trade is a critical lever for resilience. Fragmented intra-Asian trade and regulatory differences limit local food system equity. Dr. Ana Maria Loboguerrero, Director for Adaptive and Equitable Food Systems at the Gates Foundation, observes: "Today, South Asia primarily exports staple crops and processed products globally, missing opportunities to build resilient local ecosystems through regional collaboration. Variations in regulations and logistics limit progress, keeping intraregional trade fragmented. Harmonizing trade can reduce food prices, buffer against climate shocks, stimulate crop diversification, and support unified responses to climate-driven pest spread." In 2025, several countries advanced harmonization, streamlining certifications, improving logistics, and adopting risk-mitigating frameworks for climate-sensitive commodities, stabilizing prices and supporting crop diversification. Technology Goes Mainstream In 2025, digital agriculture in Asia crossed a point of no return. Artificial intelligence and climate-tech tools stopped being framed as pilots or “future-ready” concepts and instead became part of the operating backbone of agricultural systems across multiple countries. What distinguished the year was not innovation itself, but scale, speed, and institutional adoption. In India, AI-powered climate advisory systems reached operational maturity. Large-scale deployments began delivering hyper-local, real-time advisories to farmers across rainfed and irrigated regions, combining weather forecasts, soil moisture data, crop-stage intelligence, and pest-risk alerts. These advisories increasingly influenced sowing decisions, irrigation scheduling, and input use at the village level, reducing crop losses during erratic monsoon phases and prolonged dry spells. Importantly, these systems were not standalone apps; they were integrated with public extension networks, crop insurance triggers, and digital soil health programs—signaling a shift from fragmented pilots to systemic use. China accelerated the use of drones, sensors, and satellite-linked AI platforms across its rice belts and horticulture clusters. In several provinces, drone-assisted monitoring of crop health, nutrient stress, and water use became routine rather than exceptional. AI models processed high-frequency imagery to guide precision spraying, optimize irrigation intervals, and flag early pest outbreaks. The emphasis was not just productivity, but climate efficiency—reducing water use, lowering chemical runoff, and stabilizing yields amid heat stress events that have become more frequent across eastern China. Across Southeast Asia, climate intelligence became a national priority rather than a sectoral experiment. Vietnam and Thailand deployed machine-learning models to simulate flood scenarios in delta regions, helping authorities adjust planting calendars, pre-position inputs, and manage water releases. These systems informed both farmers and policymakers, aligning field-level decisions with basin-level water management. In Indonesia, AI-based drought prediction tools were linked to food logistics planning, enabling early interventions in vulnerable provinces before shortages escalated into price shocks. The Philippines took a different but equally significant route, integrating digital tools into climate-risk governance. AI-driven early warning systems for typhoons and floods were connected directly to agricultural insurance payouts and emergency credit lines. When climate thresholds were breached, farmers gained faster access to relief and recovery finance, reducing the lag between disaster and response that has historically deepened rural distress. Meanwhile, Japan and South Korea focused on high-precision digital agriculture aligned with climate adaptation and labor constraints. Robotics, AI-driven greenhouse management, and sensor-based water control systems were scaled to stabilize production under heat stress and demographic pressure. These technologies also fed into traceability and sustainability reporting systems, strengthening market access and compliance in export-oriented supply chains. Underlying these country-level deployments was the rapid expansion of climate-focused agri-tech incubators and accelerators across APAC. In 2025, these platforms prioritized startups that could deliver precision farming, advanced water-use efficiency, and climate-resilient supply chains at scale. The shift was clear: solutions were evaluated not on novelty, but on their ability to operate under stress—poor connectivity, extreme weather, fragmented landholdings, and tight margins. The cumulative effect of these developments is structural. Technology in Asian agriculture is no longer an add-on or productivity enhancer; it has become a risk-management infrastructure. AI systems now sit alongside insurance, credit, and public policy as essential tools for coping with climate volatility. By the end of 2025, climate intelligence was no longer aspirational—it was operational, embedded, and increasingly indispensable to how Asia grows its food. A Sector Quietly Transforming 2025 was not merely a year of crises or headline-grabbing innovations; it marked the quiet transformation of Asia’s agricultural landscape. Technology, policy, finance, and on-farm practices converged to create systems capable of anticipating, absorbing, and adapting to climate shocks. Across the region, several developments underscored this shift. India completed the MFC 2025 fisheries Census, providing critical data for ecosystem-based management and ensuring traceability in seafood exports. In Japan, blue carbon and kelp restoration initiatives expanded significantly, creating measurable environmental benefits while generating high-value carbon credits. China deployed drone-assisted climate-smart agriculture across its rice belts, integrating real-time monitoring of soil, water, and pest conditions to optimize yields and resilience. Meanwhile, Indonesia and Vietnam piloted regenerative aquaculture and rice-straw-to-energy programs, linking circular economy principles with climate-smart food production. In the Philippines, community-managed solar-powered irrigation systems strengthened local resilience and reduced reliance on grid electricity, while Thailand and Malaysia launched AI-enabled early warning systems that connect flood and drought forecasts directly to insurance and credit mechanisms, helping farmers manage climate risk proactively. These initiatives, coupled with broader adoption of hydroponics, climate-resilient crops, biochar, and regional trade integration, illustrate how adaptation, market competitiveness, and systemic resilience are increasingly intertwined. The focus is not merely on technology deployment or policy announcements; it is on integrating solutions across the farm, market, and financial ecosystem to create durable, scalable outcomes. While challenges remain in ensuring equitable access to technology, finance, and infrastructure, the foundations for a smarter, adaptive, and climate-resilient agricultural sector are firmly established. The structural and technological shifts achieved in 2025 will have far-reaching consequences for food security, rural livelihoods, and economic stability across Asia for decades. In an era defined by climate uncertainty, the region’s agriculture demonstrates that meaningful transformation is possible not through headline-grabbing innovations alone, but through sustained, coordinated, and system-wide innovation. ---- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3491/tariffs-tradecraft-and-turbulence-how-2025-rewired-asias-agri-economy.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3491/tariffs-tradecraft-and-turbulence-how-2025-rewired-asias-agri-economy.html Tue, 23 Dec 2025 17:14:23 +0530 By the end of 2025, Asia’s agricultural economy is no longer being shaped primarily by climate cycles, productivity gains, or technology adoption. It has been being shaped by policy—and more specifically, by tariffs wielded as instruments of economic power. What distinguished 2025 from earlier episodes of protectionism was not merely escalation, but intent. Tariffs were no longer episodic responses to domestic political pressure or trade imbalances. They became systemic tools of statecraft, used to discipline trading partners, signal geopolitical alignment, manage inflation, and re-engineer supply chains. Agriculture and agri-food—once treated as sensitive sectors to be insulated from trade wars—were pulled decisively into the crosshairs. The result was not a uniform slowdown across Asia, but a profound reallocation of growth, capital, and competitiveness. Some economies absorbed the shock through diversification and regional integration. Others—more exposed to Western demand or narrow growth engines—stumbled. At the center of this reset stood a single catalyst: the United States’ reciprocal tariff regime. When Reciprocity Turned Punitive: The U.S. Tariff Doctrine Expands In 2025, Washington aggressively expanded what it framed as a reciprocal tariff regime—a doctrine that justified punitive import duties as corrective responses to perceived protectionism abroad. What began as a manufacturing-centric strategy quickly widened. Agricultural and agri-food commodities—processed foods, spices, horticulture products, and value-added farm exports—were swept into the policy’s broad ambit. India and China emerged among the most exposed. Both faced double-digit tariff increases across a wide spectrum of agri and processed food exports to the U.S. market. For India, the shock was immediate. High-value categories such as tea, coffee, spices, tropical fruit concentrates, and essential oils suddenly faced duties as high as 50 percent, eroding competitiveness overnight. The policy logic in Washington was geopolitical. The economic fallout at home was inflationary. Rising food prices and higher input costs quickly fed into domestic pressure, forcing a partial recalibration. By mid-2025, the U.S. granted exemptions on over 200 food items, easing consumer inflation and offering selective relief to exporters. But the reprieve was tactical, not structural. The broader macroeconomic signal was unmistakable: tariffs were no longer tactical irritants. They had become structural levers of economic posture. Costs of capital goods, fertilisers, packaging materials, and intermediate inputs rose across supply chains. Demand in key Western markets softened just as financing tightened. Exporters were compelled to rethink market concentration, contract duration, and risk exposure—often simultaneously. Indian shipments of spices, coffee, and processed foods contracted sharply in the immediate aftermath of tariff escalation, stabilising only marginally after exemptions took effect. Pricing power remained constrained, compliance costs rose, and exporters increasingly treated the U.S. as a volatile rather than anchor market. For China, the moment marked a more decisive rupture. China’s Countermove: Retaliation Abroad, Re-Anchoring at Home Beijing responded to Washington’s tariff expansion not with restraint, but with design. As U.S. reciprocal tariffs widened through 2025, China escalated in parallel, lifting average tariffs on U.S. goods to above 50 percent, extending across nearly the entire import spectrum. Agriculture—once politically sensitive and strategically insulated—was decisively pulled into the contest. Soybeans, dairy, feed ingredients, and agri-processed goods were no longer collateral damage; they became leverage.The immediate effect was a sharp erosion of China’s price competitiveness in North America. Chinese agricultural exports lost ground, while U.S. farm commodities struggled to retain market share in China. But Beijing’s objective was not tactical retaliation alone. The deeper consequence was structural: a deliberate and accelerated de-risking of China’s agri-trade exposure to the United States.Rather than preserving U.S. trade volumes at escalating political and economic cost, Beijing pivoted toward regional realignment and supply-chain sovereignty. Agricultural sourcing diversified away from the United States—soybean procurement shifted toward Brazil and Argentina, dairy imports favored Oceania and Central Asia, and feedstocks moved toward multiple Latin American and Eurasian suppliers. On the export side, China prioritized Asia, the Middle East, and emerging markets, where tariffs were predictable, demand growth strong, and trade diplomacy aligned.The clearest evidence of this re-anchoring emerged in China’s agricultural trade with Southeast Asia. In 2025, China–ASEAN agri-food trade reached approximately USD 51 billion, rising close to 9 percent year-on-year, even as trade with OECD markets stagnated. Imports of rice and cereals surged by over 70 percent, plant oils rose roughly 17 percent, and seafood imports grew about 14 percent. Value-added products—starches, dried roots, and packaged foods—also expanded, reflecting a shift from raw input dependence to regional processing integration. Tariffs on intra-Asian trade were progressively reduced or eliminated under upgraded bilateral arrangements and RCEP-linked frameworks, allowing rice, fruits, seafood, coffee, and processed foods from ASEAN economies to flow into China with fewer barriers, even as access to Western markets remained restricted.A Tactical Truce: Managed Competition Replaces Open EscalationLate 2025 also brought a narrowly scoped, sector-specific recalibration in U.S.–China economic relations. The bilateral deal included renewed agricultural purchases, a reduction of fentanyl-related tariffs, and a pause on Chinese export controls, signaling a tactical easing of tensions without undermining China’s broader trade realignment.China committed to stop exporting fentanyl precursors to the United States and to effectively eliminate current and proposed export controls on rare earth elements and critical minerals. Beijing also agreed to end retaliatory tariffs and non-tariff measures on U.S. agricultural and other goods, resuming transactional flows in select sectors. In particular, China pledged to purchase at least 12 million metric tons of U.S. soybeans in the last two months of 2025 and 25 million metric tons annually from 2026 through 2028, reassuring American farm states and stabilizing global oilseed markets.In return, the United States agreed to reduce cumulative fentanyl-related tariffs on Chinese imports by 10 percent and suspend for one year Section 301 responsive actions related to maritime, logistics, and shipbuilding sectors. During this suspension, Washington will continue negotiations with China, while deepening industrial cooperation with South Korea and Japan to revitalize U.S. shipbuilding—underscoring that strategic competition, not reconciliation, remains the frame.Taken together, the agreement marked a temporary easing of tensions. While transactional flows resumed, China’s longer-term strategy—diversified sourcing, deeper ASEAN integration, and reduced reliance on any single corridor—remained intact. The truce stabilized volumes but did not restore dependency.Trade Realignment SolidifiesEven as U.S. soybean shipments were scheduled to resume, China’s agricultural trade had already been fundamentally restructured. ASEAN and intra-Asian trade became the primary stabilizer, with supply chains shortened, compliance costs lowered, and small-to-medium producers gaining access to markets previously hard to reach. Tariffs did not shrink China’s trade footprint—they redirected it, embedding resilience through diversification and regional integration.By the end of 2025, the outcome was unmistakable: agriculture had become both a lever of strategy and a barometer of resilience. Tariffs, once temporary instruments of pressure, were now permanent features in the architecture of global trade, shaping flows, redirecting supply chains, and compelling both the U.S. and China to recalibrate strategies across continents. India: Selective Protection, Strategic Diversification India’s agri-trade strategy in 2025 was defined by balancing domestic stability with global market access, navigating tariff disruptions while capitalising on structural export strengths.On the defensive front, New Delhi raised import duties on edible oils to support domestic oilseed growers, shielding rural incomes amid volatile global prices and chronic import dependence. Elevated edible oil duties helped contain import-induced price swings, but they also raised input costs for food processors and livestock producers that rely on imported feedstocks, squeezing margins just as exporters faced geopolitical tariff shocks in key Western markets.Simultaneously, India pursued liberalisation where export competitiveness mattered most. A case in point was rice. After years of export controls, the government fully dismantled long-standing rice shipment restrictions in late 2024 and early 2025, sending a powerful signal to global buyers. The payoff was immediate. In FY2024-25, India’s agricultural and processed food exports rose by over 13 percent, with rice shipments expanding sharply. Rice exports—including basmati and non-basmati varieties—reached $12.47 billion, up from $10.41 billion the year before, driven by stronger global demand following the removal of export curbs.Rice alone accounted for more than half of India’s agri-export value in that period, underscoring its structural importance and the impact of policy stability. In the first half of FY2025 - 26, rice exports continued to perform strongly: APEDA data show India’s agricultural exports climbed approximately 12 percent year-on-year to $13.93 billion in April–September 2025, with non-basmati rice rising nearly 28 percent by value and volume up more than 50 percent. Beyond rice, other hallmark commodities illustrated India’s export breadth in 2025: Spices, a traditional mainstay, crossed the $4 billion threshold in 2024-25 and continued to anchor export momentum into 2025, reflecting India’s leading global position in chilli, turmeric, cumin, and mixed spice blends. Coffee exports, including robusta and specialty Arabica beans, grew robustly—with early 2025 figures showing export values up nearly 48 percent year-on-year in April alone, as global supply tightness supported prices and shipments. Meat, dairy and poultry products also expanded in early 2025, with export values rising by roughly 15 percent in April compared to the year before, signalling diversification into higher-value protein shipments. These headline figures demonstrate that, despite tariff headwinds in the West, India’s agri-export portfolio remained both diverse and growth-oriented.To mitigate the tariff impact and broaden market access, India accelerated trade diversification—prioritising the Gulf, Africa, and select developed markets where agricultural concessions were feasible or where India has deep historical ties. Africa, historically a strong destination for Indian rice, pulses, and staples, continued to account for a significant share of agri exports, while India deepened engagement with the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), including a landmark comprehensive economic partnership agreement with Oman granting zero-duty access to most Indian exports.Trade data from 2023 (the most recent detailed breakdown available) show that Asia accounted for roughly 58 percent of India’s agricultural exports, with Africa contributing about 15 percent and the U.S. roughly 13 percent. These regional patterns provided the basis for India’s strategic redirection in 2025 away from over-reliance on tariff-exposed developed markets toward near-region and Global South demand hubs. At the same time, India’s reliance on imported edible oils remained pronounced. Vegetable oils continued to dominate India’s farm import bill, reflecting deep structural demand. Domestic edible oil production lagged consumption, necessitating imports of palm, soy, and sunflower oils despite heightened tariffs—underscoring the limits of selective protection when underlying supply gaps persist.The strategic takeaway from 2025 was unambiguous: tariff protection can buy political stability, but export growth in an era of protectionist headwinds requires market access, diversification, and product upgrading. India’s calibrated approach—shielding vulnerable producers at home while restoring credibility in core export segments and pivoting toward growth markets abroad—reflected an evolving trade playbook tailored to a fractured global tariff landscape. ASEAN and RCEP: Tariffs Reduced, Resilience Built If 2025 proved anything, it was that regionalism worked—not as a shield against global disruption, but as a system for absorbing it.Under RCEP, intra-regional tariffs on agri goods, fertilisers, and processed foods continued to fall, while rules of origin were harmonized across 15 economies. Compliance costs dropped, supply chains shortened, and small-to-medium enterprises gained access to markets previously difficult to reach.Vietnam, Malaysia, and Thailand leveraged these preferences to maintain export momentum. Vietnam’s agri-food exports into Asia grew steadily, Malaysia sustained processed food and palm oil exports, and Thailand preserved rice, seafood, and agro-industrial export growth. Regional trade densification shortened supply chains, reduced intermediate import dependence, and embedded redundancy and resilience.RCEP did not eliminate volatility—but it re-routed trade rather than letting it collapse, providing predictability that offset shocks from U.S. and EU tariff policies. Southeast Asia’s Q3 Reckoning: Growth Under Tariff Pressure By Q3 2025, Southeast Asia was a live laboratory for tariff shocks: trade flows held firm, but growth split sharply across the region. According to " Southeast Asia quarterly economic review " by McKinsey & Company: Vietnam emerged as the standout performer, recording 8.2 percent GDP growth, the fastest in the region. Manufacturing and construction accelerated, services remained robust, and foreign investment flows stayed resilient. Even as tariff-exposed export segments slowed late in the quarter, Vietnam’s diversified industrial base cushioned the blow. Malaysia followed with 5.2 percent growth, supported by strong global demand for electrical and electronics products. Manufacturing and consumer-linked services drove expansion, while mining rebounded sharply on higher LNG and crude oil output. Agriculture moderated slightly, reflecting shifting policy priorities. Elsewhere, the picture darkened. The Philippines’ growth slowed to 4.0 percent, its weakest since 2021. Services momentum faded, industrial growth stalled, and agriculture suffered as typhoons disrupted harvests. Tariffs amplified existing vulnerabilities. Thailand’s slowdown was more severe. Growth fell to 1.2 percent, with tourism weakening, services slowing, and both manufacturing and construction contracting for the first time in 2025. Even strong electronics exports could not offset broader demand softness. Indonesia held steady at 5 percent, but warning signs mounted. Foreign direct investment fell 8.9 percent year-on-year, the steepest drop since early 2020, as tariff uncertainty and geopolitical risk dampened sentiment. Capital concentrated in strategic sectors such as mining and logistics, bypassing consumption-oriented industries. Singapore grew 4.2 percent, prompting an upward revision to its annual outlook. Yet non-oil domestic exports contracted unexpectedly as U.S. tariffs weighed heavily on shipments—one of the clearest illustrations of tariff transmission into real economic drag. The lesson was unmistakable: tariffs did not slow Southeast Asia uniformly—they sorted it. Agriculture in the Crosswinds In 2025, agriculture did not escape the crosscurrents of global economic turbulence—it absorbed them indirectly, persistently, and unevenly. While the majority of reciprocal tariffs and trade tensions initially targeted manufactured goods, their reverberations extended deep into the food and agri-allied sectors. Slower services growth, particularly in tourism, hospitality, and urban consumption hubs, dampened domestic food demand in several Southeast Asian markets. Investment pullbacks—especially in cold-chain infrastructure, warehousing, and logistics—delayed modernization efforts crucial for maintaining quality and export competitiveness. Even small fluctuations in fertiliser, pesticide, and seed import duties translated into meaningful input-cost volatility for farmers and processors, compressing margins at a time of rising energy and labour costs.Yet the sector demonstrated remarkable resilience in pockets, and the explanation lay less in national protective tariffs and more in regional trade architecture and integration. Frameworks such as RCEP, upgraded ASEAN bilateral agreements, and intra-Asian supply chain arrangements provided structural cushions. Vietnam and Malaysia, for example, leveraged RCEP preferences to maintain export momentum for rice, seafood, and processed foods even as U.S. and EU markets became less accessible. Compliance costs dropped, supply chains shortened, and SMEs gained access to large, tariff-preferential markets without negotiating separate bilateral agreements. In short, agriculture held up not because of border walls, but because trade corridors within the region were predictable, diversified, and embedded.Similarly, India’s experience highlighted the limits of unilateral tariff protection. Import duties on edible oils shielded domestic producers but raised costs for downstream food processors and livestock farmers, demonstrating that insulation alone cannot fully mitigate global shocks. Export-oriented commodities—rice, spices, coffee—flourished only where access to diversified overseas markets was available, from the Gulf and Africa to Asia, underscoring that trade resilience depends on integration, not isolation.The 2025 experience underscored a critical lesson: agriculture’s performance is structurally intertwined with trade networks, supply chain efficiency, and market diversification. Protective tariffs may provide temporary relief or political stability, but long-term resilience in a world of persistent trade shocks is built through regional frameworks, predictable rules, and strategic alignment, not through national walls. In this sense, agriculture in Asia was less a passive victim of global trade frictions than an adaptive system navigating the crosswinds through connectivity and institutional foresight. What 2025 Ultimately Changed 2025 Ultimately ChangedBy the end of 2025, three structural truths had crystallized across Asia’s agri-economy and broader trade landscape:First, tariffs are no longer episodic shocks—they are permanent instruments of economic strategy. What once appeared as sporadic trade friction became embedded in the calculus of production, investment, and supply-chain planning. U.S. reciprocal tariffs, China’s retaliatory levies, and selective import duties in India demonstrated that governments now treat border measures as tools to achieve geopolitical leverage, manage domestic constituencies, and signal strategic intent. Trade uncertainty is no longer a temporary phenomenon to hedge against—it is a structural feature of the new economic environment.Second, resilience comes not from insulation but from integration. Nations and sectors that relied on isolationist protectionism paid a cost. Conversely, economies leveraging regional frameworks, bilateral agreements, and adaptive supply chains buffered themselves from external shocks. RCEP-enabled flows, ASEAN intra-regional trade preferences, and India’s diversified export corridors to the Gulf, Africa, and Asia illustrate the principle: predictable, flexible, and diversified market access is more protective than any tariff wall. Resilience is increasingly measured in the ability to pivot supply chains quickly, reduce compliance complexity, and maintain volumes amid shifting global conditions.Third, agriculture can no longer be treated as a domestic policy silo. In 2025, farming, fisheries, fertilisers, and food processing were not merely economic sectors—they were instruments of diplomacy, leverage, and strategic signaling. Beijing used soy, dairy, and seafood flows as both bargaining chips and regional connectors. India balanced farmer protection with export credibility, shaping its trade posture to align domestic welfare with international market access. ASEAN producers relied on RCEP to preserve trade volumes, demonstrating that agricultural policy is inseparable from geopolitical and economic architecture.Taken together, these truths underscore a broader structural shift: Asia did not exit 2025 weaker—but it exited reordered. Growth favored economies combining industrial depth, trade agility, and policy clarity. Capital gravitated toward jurisdictions that offered certainty amid fragmentation. Agriculture, often the silent absorber of policy risk, became a barometer of strategic competence: who could maintain farm incomes, secure inputs, and sustain exports under layered tariff pressures became a marker of overall resilience.For investors, policymakers, and agribusinesses, the implications are profound. Predictability, diversification, and connectivity are no longer optional—they are core determinants of competitive advantage. Supply chains must be designed for agility, not just efficiency; trade corridors must be navigated as instruments of strategy, not as passive conduits.As 2026 approaches, one conclusion is unavoidable: in a world where tariffs are strategy, adaptability is destiny. Countries and firms that internalize this reality, leveraging integration rather than insulation, will capture growth, manage risk, and shape the contours of the next decade. Those that cling to old notions of protection or market complacency will find themselves exposed to the crosswinds of a permanently restructured global trade architecture.2025 was the year Asia recalibrated. The next decade will reveal who turned insight into advantage—and who became collateral in the era of tariffs as policy. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3490/asias-agri-tech-reckoning-why-2025-became-defining-year-for-farm-inputs.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3490/asias-agri-tech-reckoning-why-2025-became-defining-year-for-farm-inputs.html Tue, 23 Dec 2025 17:06:31 +0530 From AI-guided seeds in China to microbial fertilisers in Southeast Asia and desert farming systems in West Asia, 2025 marked the moment agricultural technology in Asia-Pacific stopped being experimental — and became strategic. In 2025, Asia-Pacific agriculture crossed a quiet but consequential threshold. For years, agri-tech across the region had been framed as a future promise: pilots, proofs of concept, donor-funded trials, and glossy demonstrations that rarely survived the realities of fragmented landholdings, thin rural credit, and conservative farmer behaviour. This year, that framing collapsed. Climate volatility sharpened, fertiliser geopolitics resurfaced, export markets hardened residue and traceability standards, and governments began treating agricultural inputs not as commodities but as strategic infrastructure. What followed was not a single revolution, but a region-wide realignment. Digital advisories became operational tools. Biologicals moved from fringe to necessity. Precision equipment shifted from ownership to service. Seeds re-entered geopolitical calculations. And data — once an afterthought — became a new battleground of trust. Asia’s agri-tech story in 2025 was not about who invented the smartest tool. It was about who made technology stick. From Pilot Projects to Production Systems In 2025, the most consequential change in Asia-Pacific agriculture did not arrive with a product launch or a funding round. It arrived quietly, through the disappearance of a word that had dominated agri-tech discourse for over a decade: pilot. For years, digital agriculture in Asia lived in perpetual trial mode. AI-driven advisories, satellite imagery, weather-linked pest alerts, and soil analytics were showcased at conferences, tested on demonstration plots, and praised in reports—yet rarely embedded into everyday farming decisions. In 2025, that cycle finally broke. Across India, China, Vietnam, and much of Southeast Asia, digital agri-inputs stopped being marketed as standalone apps or dashboards. Instead, they were absorbed into the institutional plumbing of agriculture—extension services, farmer producer organisations, agribusiness procurement systems, and government programmes. Technology no longer asked farmers to change their behaviour first; systems changed around them. India’s Digital Agriculture Mission crystallised this shift. The state moved away from promoting isolated tools and focused instead on decision integration. AI-based, hyper-local input recommendations began factoring in groundwater stress, rainfall volatility, soil health records, and price signals—transforming advisories from generic suggestions into actionable instructions. The platforms that scaled fastest were not those with the most sophisticated models, but those that bundled input guidance with credit access, assured input delivery, and market linkage. In a landscape dominated by smallholders, integration proved more valuable than innovation. China’s trajectory was markedly different—and deliberately so. Digital agriculture there evolved as an industrial system rather than a farmer service. On large state farms in Heilongjiang and Inner Mongolia, AI-guided fertilisation, autonomous tractors, and drone-based variable spraying were rolled out at scale. The goal was not incremental yield gains but radical input efficiency and labour substitution in a countryside grappling with demographic decline. In China’s model, digital inputs functioned less as advisory tools and more as instruments of operational discipline. Southeast Asia offered a third pathway. In Vietnam and Thailand, digital input systems became tightly linked to export compliance. Traceability requirements from European and Gulf markets forced agribusinesses to embed digital nutrient planning and pest forecasting into contract farming arrangements. Adoption followed not because farmers were convinced, but because market access depended on it. In South Asia’s poorer economies, necessity bred pragmatism. Nepal and Bangladesh leapfrogged capital-intensive models altogether, deploying mobile-first advisory systems that worked on basic phones and unreliable networks. These platforms compensated for weak mechanisation by optimising timing—when to plant, irrigate, fertilise, or protect crops—proving that digital agriculture could scale even where hardware could not. This transition marked the end of technology theatre in Asian agriculture. For the first time, digital tools stopped being optional add-ons that relied on farmer enthusiasm and became embedded decision infrastructure. Once input recommendations were wired into credit approval, procurement contracts, subsidy delivery, and extension workflows, adoption ceased to be voluntary. It became structural. That shift fundamentally altered the economics of agri-tech. Scaling no longer depended on persuading millions of individual farmers one by one. It depended on plugging into a handful of powerful systems—banks, buyers, cooperatives, and governments. The result was a dramatic acceleration in adoption speed, coverage, and consistency. More importantly, 2025 established a new rule for agri-tech success in Asia-Pacific: technology that does not integrate will not scale. The winners were not the smartest algorithms, but the ones that disappeared into the background—quietly shaping decisions, reducing risk, and making agriculture more governable in an increasingly volatile world. In that sense, 2025 did not make digital agriculture more visible.It made it unavoidable. The Year Chemistry Lost Its Monopoly: APAC Agri-Tech 2025 If 2025 had a defining theme in Asia-Pacific agriculture, it was integration under pressure. Across the region, digital advisories, biological inputs, and next-generation chemical technologies converged into system-level farm management platforms, reshaping how seeds were sown, nutrients applied, weeds controlled, and risks mitigated — from India’s vast paddy belts to China’s industrial grain corridors and Southeast Asia’s diversified cropping landscapes. The most visible shift was the quiet disappearance of the word pilot. Demonstration plots and experimental apps became operational infrastructure. AI-driven crop advisories, satellite-based nutrient planning, and weather-linked pest forecasts were embedded into extension services, credit pathways, and agribusiness procurement platforms. India’s Digital Agriculture Mission integrated hyper-local recommendations into government and cooperative systems; China’s Heilongjiang and Inner Mongolia state farms scaled autonomous machinery, drone-based spraying, and AI-guided fertilization; Nepal and Bangladesh leapfrogged hardware-heavy models with mobile-first advisory platforms. Digital tools moved from optional add-ons to decision infrastructure, shaping adoption speed and scale region-wide. Yet while technology transformed how inputs were applied, geopolitical developments reshaped what inputs were available. China, a dominant global supplier of nitrogenous and phosphate fertilizers, restricted exports of specialty fertilizers in 2025 to preserve domestic supply and support strategic industries such as battery production. For importers like India, this triggered an acute fertilizer crunch, spiking prices, straining subsidy programs, and forcing urgent diversification toward alternative sources in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Analysts noted that these export controls functioned as a non-tariff trade lever, echoing prior Chinese tactics with rare earths and industrial chemicals. The disruption accelerated adoption of biologicals and precision digital tools, as microbial inoculants, bio-stimulants, and AI-driven nutrient optimization became essential to maintain crop performance under uncertain chemical supply. Biologicals themselves evolved from alternative inputs to core risk-management tools. In India, they became fiscal stabilizers, stretching subsidies while sustaining soil fertility. China embedded microbial inoculants into long-term soil health strategies. Vietnam and Thailand adopted biologicals to meet residue-compliant export requirements, while Indonesia and the Philippines embraced them to buffer climatic shocks. These products — ranging from China’s Neptunion biostimulant to the Philippines’ 7,200-MT biofertilizer facility producing nitrogen-fixing, phosphate-solubilizing, and mycorrhizal inoculants — addressed gaps that chemistry or digital advisories alone could not, enhancing soil microbiome health, nutrient cycling, and adaptive stress resilience. Chemical innovation, meanwhile, became more targeted and integrated. BASF’s Provisia Herbicide-Tolerant Rice System in China allowed precise herbicide use on tolerant varieties, reducing weed pressure without compromising integrated management. Japan’s Kumiai Chemical introduced EFFEEDA-based herbicides (TESSHIN, SEITEN, ISSEN) for paddy, while India saw a wave of crop-specific launches — Altair, Pyankor, Dinkar, Torry Super, Brucia, Ashitaka, Pixxaro, Centurion EZ, Melody Duo, Tag-Proxy, Tag Fly Gold — addressing weeds, pests, and fungal threats across paddy, maize, wheat, soybean, cotton, and horticulture. These innovations reflect a shift from blanket chemistry to precision intervention, complementing digital advisories and biological risk buffers. In sum, 2025 crystallized a fundamental transformation in Asia-Pacific agriculture: digital tools became embedded infrastructure; biologicals emerged as essential risk-management assets; and chemistry evolved into precision instruments integrated with AI and microbial strategies. The geopolitical fertilizer crunch accelerated this transition, demonstrating that when conventional inputs falter, a combination of technology and biology can sustain productivity, profitability, and resilience. 2025 was the year chemistry lost its monopoly, digital intelligence gained operational dominance, and biologicals became indispensable, establishing the blueprint for Asia-Pacific agriculture in the decade ahead. Precision Agriculture: Scale Still Wins In 2025, precision agriculture proved its value — but it also laid bare a structural truth: scale still dictates adoption unless delivery models evolve. Across the Asia‑Pacific, regions with expansive, consolidated farms pushed precision tools into operational use. In Australia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan, satellite‑guided fertilisation, AI‑based yield mapping, and variable‑rate application systems became standard in broadacre cereal and oilseed landscapes. China’s state farms blended autonomous tractors, robotic sprayers, and fleet‑wide AI decision engines to squeeze every unit of input for maximum efficiency. Malaysia’s oil palm sector emerged as one of the region’s most advanced applications, where integrated sensor networks and drone scouting optimized nutrition and protection regimes across tens of thousands of hectares. The technology landscape confirms this trajectory. Asia‑Pacific’s agri‑drones market alone — a key precision agriculture proxy — was valued at approximately $1.4 billion in 2025 and is projected to grow sharply through the decade, driven by crop monitoring, adaptive spraying, and IoT‑connected data systems that support real‑time decision‑making and labor substitution. Remote sensing, satellite imagery, and AI‑enhanced variable‑rate fertiliser application technologies reported estimated adoption rates above 55  per cent among modern commercial growers by 2025, supporting nutrient savings of up to 20‑25  per cent and yield uplifts in the mid‑teens.  But smallholder Asia told a different story. Precision agriculture’s capital intensity — GPS‑enabled machinery, sensors, and automated implements — remains a barrier for fragmented landholding systems where average farm sizes are often below two hectares. Empirical data shows that among smallholders globally, adoption of GPS‑guided systems rarely exceeds the low double digits, with variable‑rate technologies and remote sensing trailing even further. Investments in a $5,000–$20,000 technology stack can delay return on investment beyond a single cropping cycle in low‑margin systems, dampening farmer demand.  In this environment, precision agriculture succeeded only when delivered as a service. Drone spraying, soil health testing, and nutrient diagnostics increasingly appeared as on‑demand utilities rather than assets to be bought outright. Contract service providers and Agri‑Tech‑as‑a‑Service (Agri‑TaaS) models allowed even midsized farms to access variable‑rate application maps, crop health indices, and UAV‑enabled scouting without the upfront capital burden. Emerging Drone‑as‑a‑Service models — where operators lease UAV capabilities at daily or seasonal rates — have proliferated, making precision spraying and data capture accessible to farmers who would otherwise never own the hardware.  2025 shattered the myth that precision agriculture naturally democratizes farming. Instead, it demonstrated that precision follows scale unless proactively redesigned for fragmentation. Large farms could absorb the cost and complexity, turning precision tools into economic levers. Smallholder regions, by contrast, only saw tangible benefits through service‑based delivery, where expertise, hardware, and analytics were pooled and shared. This realization forced companies and governments to rethink precision adoption strategies — from hardware sales to service ecosystems, from one‑off subsidies to sustainable subscription models. It underscored a critical insight: technology delivery must match farm structure, not farm size, and only then can precision agriculture truly bridge the divide between commercial estates and smallholder fields. In 2025, precision agriculture did not flatten Asia’s farm landscape — but it did reshape the model of delivery, setting the stage for broader inclusion and impact in the decade ahead. Seeds Return to the Geopolitical Arena While digital tools, biologicals, and chemical innovations dominated public attention, the most strategic transformation of 2025 quietly unfolded beneath the soil. Seeds — long treated as commercial commodities — returned to the geopolitical stage, framed explicitly as instruments of national resilience and sovereignty. China accelerated gene-edited crop programs and AI-driven breeding platforms, prioritizing wheat, rice, and maize varieties that could sustain production under erratic rainfall, rising temperatures, and constrained fertilizer access. Beijing’s investments were not only productivity-focused; they aimed to consolidate control over proprietary genetics, establishing seed systems as national strategic assets and reducing dependency on global germplasm flows. India, in parallel, expanded climate-resilient breeding partnerships, leveraging both public-private collaborations and international research networks to develop drought-tolerant rice and heat-resilient wheat varieties. State-led initiatives, such as ICAR’s accelerated trial programs, focused on integrating CRISPR-enabled traits and conventional breeding to safeguard staple crops against climate extremes. In Pakistan and Bangladesh, national breeding priorities concentrated on salt- and heat-tolerant rice and wheat, reflecting acute vulnerability in delta and arid regions. Bangladesh’s recently expanded saline-tolerant rice trials, covering over 15,000 hectares in the coastal belt, exemplified a shift from yield-maximization to risk hedging. Similarly, Pakistan invested in early-maturing, heat-resilient wheat varieties to buffer against both climatic shocks and export volatility. Central Asian states — particularly Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan — poured resources into drought-hardy wheat and cotton genetics, ensuring stable export flows for regional markets heavily dependent on staple and fiber crops. AI-assisted selection and marker-assisted breeding accelerated cycles, compressing what once took a decade into 3–4 years of development. Even Southeast Asia and West Asia joined the trend: Vietnam prioritized flood-tolerant rice, Thailand expanded stress-resilient cassava, and Israel continued deploying precision breeding and controlled-environment trials to secure strategic horticultural crops. 2025 crystallized a fundamental shift: seeds re-emerged as long-term strategic infrastructure, not just inputs for yield maximization. In a world increasingly defined by climate volatility, geopolitical tensions, and trade uncertainties, genetic control became as important as productivity. Nations recognized that access to proprietary germplasm, rapid breeding capabilities, and AI-driven selection systems could safeguard food security, export stability, and economic sovereignty. The era of agri-input sovereignty — with seeds at its core — was no longer theoretical. 2025 marked the year when national strategies explicitly treated seed systems as instruments of resilience and leverage, signaling a profound recalibration of priorities across Asia-Pacific and beyond. West Asia: When Inputs Became National Security Nowhere was the strategic turn sharper than in West Asia. Israel continued exporting agricultural intelligence — irrigation algorithms, fertigation software, microbial platforms — embedding itself deeply into global food systems. Saudi Arabia scaled controlled-environment agriculture, saline-tolerant inputs, and AI irrigation as part of food security policy. Iraq focused on seed reform and digital planning to stabilise yields amid water scarcity. West Asia reframed agri-inputs as resilience infrastructure, not farm tools. This logic — agriculture as national security — is increasingly influencing Asia’s food policy debates, especially in water-stressed and import-dependent economies. The Barriers That Refused to Move Despite the rapid advance of digital advisories, biological inputs, and precision tools in 2025, three deep structural constraints remained stubbornly persistent — finance, fragmentation, and trust — limiting the pace and breadth of transformation in Asian agriculture. Finance Still Lags Behind Technology Across low‑ and middle‑income countries in the region, the gap between available technology and farmers’ ability to pay for it remained wide in 2025. Modern agri‑tech tools — from AI decision platforms to drones and multispectral sensors — carry high upfront costs that many smallholders simply cannot absorb. Studies as recent as 2025 indicate that financial constraints topped the list of barriers to technology adoption: high initial investments and limited access to credit or tailored financial products prevented farmers from experimenting with or fully deploying new tools. Lack of affordable, green lines of credit and risk‑sharing mechanisms further limited uptake, especially among cash‑constrained smallholders whose income fluctuates with seasonality and market price swings.  Even where financing exists, its structure often fails to match agricultural realities. Traditional bank loans require collateral that small farms rarely possess, and microfinance remains too limited to bridge the financing gap for digital and precision investments. In ASEAN economies, only a minority of rural producers reported receiving technical or capital assistance, underscoring how inadequate financing mechanisms continue to constrain adoption of even well‑proven technologies.  Fragmentation Defied Standardisation Fragmentation — of data, platforms, and institutional coordination — was another barrier that refused to budge in 2025. Asia-Pacific agriculture is characterised by enormous diversity in farm size, cropping systems, languages, and governance frameworks, and no unified data or regulatory architecture exists to harmonise digital tools across these contexts. Despite strong digital penetration in some countries, fragmented data ecosystems with inconsistent standards, limited interoperability, and little consensus on privacy and governance hindered scale. In markets like India, for example, multiple siloed databases across government agencies, startups, and cooperatives limited integration of advisory, finance, and market services into a seamless farmer experience.  In the ASEAN region, national policy frameworks often referenced digitalisation goals without converting them into operational roadmaps — leading to patchy deployment of IoT, blockchain, and traceability systems, and uneven delivery of digital agri‑services. Physical infrastructure fragmentation — from inconsistent broadband to underdeveloped logistics — compounded digital silos, making it difficult for solutions that worked well in one state or village to be replicated or interoperable in another.  Trust Limited Platform Reach Technology adoption in 2025 did not fail for want of innovation — it failed where trust and legitimacy were absent. Farmers rarely adopted new tools simply because they were available. They adopted them through relationships — with cooperatives, extension agents, input suppliers, and trusted peers — not through dashboards or automated alerts. For many smallholders, the risk of incorrect recommendations, questionable data privacy, or a bad investment outweighed anticipated benefits. In some surveys, farmers expressed concern about data misuse and unclear consent protocols, deterring them from sharing field data with digital platforms.  A deeper limitation was the lack of localized validation. When technologies did not demonstrably reflect local conditions — soil types, climate patterns, pests, or market access — farmers treated them with scepticism. Adoption rates in low‑trust settings remained low even when technologies were technically sound, reflecting a broader behavioural and cultural dimension of adoption that purely technical solutions cannot address. These barriers explain why innovation alone cannot transform Asian agriculture — even in a breakthrough year like 2025. While digital tools, biological inputs, and precision systems offered tangible productivity and resilience gains, their real‑world uptake was determined less by sophistication than by institutional design, economic fit, and social legitimacy. Finance mattered because without accessible, risk‑aligned capital, even proven technologies remained out of reach for most farmers. Fragmentation mattered because disconnected data and policy systems impeded coherent delivery and scale. Trust mattered because adoption depended on relationships, not algorithms, and farmers gravitated toward recommendations backed by human networks, peer verification, and clear economic outcomes. In other words, adoption followed institutional design before it followed technological capability — a lesson that is reshaping how agri‑tech is financed, regulated, deployed, and scaled across Asia‑Pacific. Developing solutions that align with farmers’ cash flows, harmonise across fragmented systems, and are anchored in trusted networks will be as important as the next breakthrough in AI, drones, or biological inputs. What 2025 Really Changed The importance of 2025 lies in alignment- Technology aligned with climate reality.Inputs aligned with export economics.Digital tools aligned with policy architecture.Biologicals aligned with soil exhaustion.Precision aligned with labour scarcity. Agri-tech in Asia-Pacific is no longer chasing novelty. It is chasing durability. The next phase will not be won by those who invent fastest, but by those who integrate best — across inputs, data, finance, and markets. In a region that feeds more than half the world, the future of food will not be decided in laboratories alone. It will be decided by who controls the systems that make technologies endure. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3484/this-is-not-dumping-this-is-demand-inside-indias-rice-trade-reality-as-u-s-tariffs-surge.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3484/this-is-not-dumping-this-is-demand-inside-indias-rice-trade-reality-as-u-s-tariffs-surge.html Fri, 19 Dec 2025 13:16:45 +0530 In an exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Dev Garg, Vice President of the Indian Rice Exporters Federation (IREF), pushes back against U.S. allegations of dumping as tariffs on Indian rice rise sharply, asserting that India’s exports are fundamentally demand-driven, not subsidy-fueled. Garg explains that Indian basmati and select non-basmati varieties cater to distinct cultural and culinary segments in the U.S., making them non-substitutable by domestically grown American rice. He notes that despite tariffs increasing from 10 per cent to 50 per cent, demand has remained resilient, with higher costs largely absorbed by U.S. consumers due to basmati’s irreplaceable qualities and relatively low household consumption volumes. He highlights India’s structural advantages—varietal depth, ageing practices, and advanced milling infrastructure—which continue to anchor its global competitiveness. Looking ahead, Garg outlines IREF’s strategy of market diversification, value-added exports, and policy support in Budget 2026 to future-proof India’s rice export ecosystem against geopolitical and trade shocks. The U.S. President’s recent comments have brought Indo–U.S. rice trade into global focus. From IREF’s perspective, what are the biggest misconceptions that need correction regarding Indian rice exports to the United States ?The first and most fundamental misconception is the allegation of dumping. Indian rice exports to the United States are entirely demand-driven, not supply-pushed. Exporters ship rice only against confirmed orders from U.S. importers, retailers, and distributors. There is no scenario in which rice is “offloaded” into the U.S. market to suppress prices.The second misconception is that Indian rice competes directly with U.S.-grown rice. That assumption ignores basic market realities. Indian rice—especially basmati and select non-basmati varieties—serves a completely different consumer base, rooted in cultural, ethnic, and culinary preferences. U.S. rice is predominantly medium- and short-grain, designed for entirely different cooking applications. These are not interchangeable products.Finally, the MSP argument is deeply misunderstood. The U.S. has raised concerns around MSP-linked varieties such as PR-106 and IR-64. But Sona Masuri and basmati—India’s principal exports to the U.S.—do not fall under MSP at all. To suggest that MSP is distorting the U.S. market is simply incorrect.Despite tariffs rising sharply from 10 per cent to 50 per cent, Indian rice exports to the U.S. have continued. What explains this sustained demand, and how are U.S. consumers responding to higher retail prices ?The resilience of demand comes down to irreplaceability.Basmati rice is not a commodity; it is a culinary necessity for specific cuisines. The aroma, elongation, texture, and cooking behavior of Indian basmati—particularly for dishes like biryani—cannot be substituted. Even Pakistani basmati, often cited as an alternative, differs significantly in colour palette, taste profile, and ageing characteristics.India also has a strategic advantage in varietal depth. When tariffs rise, exporters can shift demand toward alternative Indian basmati varieties. For example, Pusa Basmati 1121 may be premium-priced, but newer varieties like PB-1718 or PB-1509 allow exporters to offer value options without compromising on authenticity. More recently, PB-21 (II-21) has emerged as a premium export variety, roughly priced around $ 1,000 per metric tonne, giving the market flexibility across price points.Crucially, the entire tariff burden is borne by U.S. consumers, not Indian exporters. But rice consumption volumes in the U.S. are relatively small—typically 5 kg per household annually. Given the high per capita income levels in the U.S., the absolute increase in household food expenditure is marginal. Consumers absorb the price increase without materially altering consumption behavior.Indian basmati and non-basmati rice cater to specific cultural and culinary segments in the U.S. How critical are these segments to long-term demand, and do you foresee any shifts in consumption patterns ?These segments are not niche anymore—they are structural. Indian food has become one of the most popular global cuisines, and the U.S. is no exception. The rise of Indian restaurants, ready-to-cook meal kits, ethnic food aisles in mainstream retail, and cross-cultural adoption of Indian cooking at home is driving sustained growth in basmati demand.From IREF’s perspective, the long-term trajectory is clearly upward. Basmati consumption in the U.S. is increasing not just among the Indian diaspora, but among mainstream consumers who associate it with premium quality, health, and superior taste. This is not a cyclical trend—it is a cultural shift.You mentioned that the tariff burden is largely passed on to U.S. consumers. What impact has this had on Indian exporters, millers, and farmers? Has it affected export realisations or supply-chain planning ? At present, Indian exporters remain largely insulated.There was a window of nearly one month between the announcement and implementation of the higher tariff. During this period, exporters front-loaded shipments into the U.S., ensuring continuity of supply. As a result, there has been no disruption to export flows, no inventory overhang, and no adverse impact on farm-gate prices.From a planning perspective, Indian rice exports are continuing as normal. Milling operations, procurement cycles, and shipping schedules remain intact. There is no evidence of stress transmission from U.S. tariff policy back to Indian farmers or millers at this stage.Given that U.S.-grown rice is not a like-for-like substitute for Indian basmati, how does this quality and culinary differentiation strengthen India’s competitive position globally ?India’s competitive advantage lies in quality, ageing, and processing sophistication.Indian exporters have a long-standing practice of supplying aged rice. Much like wine, rice improves with age—its cooking properties, aroma, and grain integrity enhance over time. This gives Indian rice a superior culinary experience compared to fresher alternatives from competing origins.Additionally, India’s milling infrastructure is significantly more advanced than many competing exporters, including Pakistan. Indian mills deliver consistent grain length, polish, and breakage control at scale. This consistency is critical for global buyers and foodservice chains.As a result, Indian rice is not just prevalent—it is becoming the reference standard in many global markets.Looking ahead, how is IREF working with the Government of India to diversify markets, mitigate tariff-related risks, and ensure stable growth for India’s rice export ecosystem ?Market diversification is a central pillar of IREF’s strategy.We have identified 26 high-potential international markets where competitors currently dominate rice consumption. The cumulative market opportunity across these geographies is estimated at Rs 1.8 lakh crore. These countries already import rice—it is simply sourced from non-Indian origins.Our approach is not generic. Countries like Japan, for example, are extremely particular about food quality. Sushi rice has specific textural requirements. IREF has identified Indian varieties—such as Nagri Dubraj, a GI-tagged rice from Chhattisgarh—that can technically and sensorially replace the rice currently used in sushi preparation.Beyond trade negotiations, large international events and food festivals are increasingly being used as export-promotion platforms. The goal is to demonstrate functional equivalence—or superiority—of Indian varieties in global cuisines.What recommendations would IREF like to see reflected in the Union Budget 2026 ?There are three clear priorities.First, an interest subvention scheme for rice exporters. Export financing costs in India remain high, and easing this burden would immediately improve competitiveness.Second, targeted incentives for setting up modern rice mills, especially those focused on value-added processing, ageing infrastructure, and export-grade packaging.Third, enhancing the existing export incentive framework from 0.9 per cent to around 3 per cent, coupled with a strong focus on export infrastructure—ports, logistics, and quality certification systems.These measures would not only strengthen exports but also future-proof India’s rice ecosystem against geopolitical and tariff-related shocks.Closing ThoughtAs the global trade narrative grows louder, IREF’s message is clear: India’s rice exports are not a distortion—they are a response to demand, culture, and culinary preference. Tariffs may rise, rhetoric may sharpen, but as long as food remains deeply tied to identity and taste, India’s rice will continue to travel the world—grain by grain, market by market. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3483/from-ecological-fit-to-economic-proof-botswanas-safflower-strategy-redefines-dryland-resilience.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3483/from-ecological-fit-to-economic-proof-botswanas-safflower-strategy-redefines-dryland-resilience.html Fri, 19 Dec 2025 13:08:51 +0530 In an exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Nnyaladzi Madzikigwa, Author and Director of Saffenergy Initiatives, Botswana, explains why safflower is emerging as a strategic resilience crop rather than a speculative diversification bet. Nnyaladzi argues that safflower’s real advantage lies in income stability, low input dependence, and multi-stream value creation—qualities that make it economically superior to high-yield but volatile dryland staples under climate stress. By rejecting bulk commodity markets and anchoring safflower in cooperative-owned processing, traceability, and ethical origin branding, Botswana is positioning the crop as an identity-based export for nutraceutical, cosmetic, and wellness markets. Crucially, the model integrates biodiversity stewardship, women- and youth-led ownership, and GBV-responsive livelihoods, reframing safflower not merely as an agronomic intervention but as a national strategy for climate resilience, social recovery, and rural economic sovereignty. From Ecological Fit to Economic Proof Botswana’s ecosystems have long demonstrated resilience under climatic stress—but resilience alone does not attract capital. What hard economic evidence (yield stability, cost curves, margin resilience) can demonstrate that safflower is not just climate-compatible, but commercially superior to traditional dryland staples under Botswana’s conditions ? Saffenergy Initiatives frames safflower not as a speculative diversification experiment, but as a deliberately chosen economic resilience instrument suited to Botswana’s dryland realities. Under arid and semi-arid conditions, the crop offers a rare combination of yield stability, low input intensity, and diversified revenue potential. Unlike traditional dryland staples that swing sharply with rainfall variability, safflower delivers predictable output even in stressed seasons. Its modest water, fertiliser, and pesticide requirements reduce production risk and protect farmer margins when climate shocks hit. Crucially, safflower’s value does not rest solely on seed yields: oil, cake, petals, and secondary by-products create multiple income streams. In cooperative pilots where safflower is integrated with poultry and mixed farming systems, household income volatility has fallen sharply. For Saffenergy, this stability—rather than peak agronomic performance—is what makes safflower economically compelling in Botswana’s climate context. Avoiding the Commodity Trap Many climate-resilient crops fail because they enter global markets as low-value commodities. How will Botswana position safflower not as another bulk oilseed, but as a differentiated, biodiversity-anchored product capable of sustaining premium pricing in global nutraceutical, cosmetic, and wellness markets? The strategy, Saffenergy argues, is to refuse participation in bulk oilseed markets altogether. Botswana’s opportunity lies in differentiation, not scale. Safflower is being positioned outside commodity pricing dynamics and anchored instead in biodiversity, climate resilience, and ethical production, including links to GBV recovery and livelihood reintegration programmes. The target markets are nutraceuticals, cosmetics, and wellness—segments where traceability, provenance, and ethical sourcing command premiums. By combining low-input dryland cultivation with cooperative-led traceability, social impact certification, and origin branding tied to ecosystem stewardship, Botswana safflower is repositioned from a price-taking commodity into an identity-based product. In this model, value is protected by trust and narrative, not by volume. Value Addition vs. Value Capture Local processing often creates jobs—but not necessarily wealth—if branding, IP, and market access remain offshore. Which segments of the safflower value chain (processing, formulation, branding, certification, IP) must remain in Botswana to ensure that rural communities capture value rather than merely supply raw inputs ? For communities to capture wealth rather than wages, Saffenergy insists that critical nodes of the value chain must remain in Botswana. These include primary processing such as oil pressing and cake production, downstream formulation for cosmetics, wellness blends, and animal feed, ownership of certification and traceability systems, brand control and storytelling, and intellectual property linked to formulations and indigenous knowledge. At Saffenergy, these functions are cooperative-owned by design. Export partners may handle distribution, but product identity, narrative authority, and margin capture remain local. This approach is not ideological, the organisation argues, but structural: Without control over these nodes, rural economies default to extractive models regardless of crop choice. Cooperatives as Export Vehicles, Not Welfare Structures Cooperatives frequently struggle with governance, quality control, and market discipline.What institutional design—governance rules, professional management, digital traceability, performance incentives—will allow Botswana’s safflower cooperatives to function as export-grade enterprises rather than subsistence collectives? Saffenergy’s answer is to design cooperatives as enterprises first and social instruments second. This means professional management rather than volunteer leadership, performance-linked incentives tied to quality and delivery, digital traceability from field to market, contractually enforced quality protocols, and a clear separation between social and commercial accounting. GBV and psychosocial support programmes operate alongside the cooperative, not within its governance framework, ensuring that empathy does not dilute market discipline. Export markets reward consistency and reliability, Saffenergy notes, and welfare logic cannot substitute for enterprise rigor. Competing in a Crowded Climate-Smart World Countries such as India, Ethiopia, and Kenya are already advancing biodiversity-linked crops into global markets. What is Botswana’s unique competitive moat—ecological, reputational, regulatory, or branding-based—that prevents safflower from becoming a race to the bottom on price? Botswana’s advantage, according to Saffenergy, is credibility rather than scale. The country brings a global reputation for good governance, clean landscapes with low chemical intensity, high trust in regulatory systems, and a compelling ethical production narrative. When these attributes are combined with biodiversity stewardship and GBV-responsive rural development, safflower becomes more than a crop—it becomes a trusted origin. That trust underpins premium pricing and shields producers from the race-to-the-bottom dynamics that have hollowed out many commodity sectors. Scaling Without Ecological Degradation History shows that scaling “green” crops can unintentionally replicate extractive agricultural models.How will Botswana ensure that safflower expansion strengthens soil health, water efficiency, and biodiversity rather than simplifying landscapes and recreating monoculture risks? Scaling, Saffenergy emphasises, does not mean monoculture expansion. Safflower’s resilience allows growth without ecological overreach when embedded within integrated farming systems, crop rotation regimes that regenerate soils, water-efficient dryland irrigation practices, and intercropping and fallow restoration strategies. Because income is diversified across by-products and poultry integration, farmers are not pressured to continuously expand acreage. In this model, ecological health is treated as an economic asset rather than an externality to be managed after the fact. Gender, Youth, and the Political Economy of Rural Jobs Rural agro-enterprises often promise inclusion but deliver uneven outcomes. How will safflower-based rural industries be structured to ensure meaningful participation and income security for women and youth—beyond seasonal labor or informal processing roles? Women and youth inclusion is positioned as central rather than ancillary. Saffenergy’s GBV-focused social programme provides psychosocial support for survivors, reintegration pathways into productive livelihoods, and skills training directly linked to income streams. Women and youth participate as cooperative shareholders, operators of processing units, and entrepreneurs in poultry and by-product enterprises. The emphasis is on continuous, year-round income rather than seasonal labour, with ownership replacing dependency. Economic agency, Saffenergy argues, is among the most effective tools for both GBV prevention and recovery. From Pilot Crop to National Strategy Many promising crops remain trapped in pilot mode due to fragmented policy support. What specific policy levers—procurement incentives, export facilitation, blended finance, certification subsidies—must Botswana activate to move safflower from a niche biodiversity project to a nationally scalable export strategy? To transition safflower from pilot projects to a national strategy, Saffenergy identifies five policy levers: public procurement of safflower oil and by-products, blended finance for rural processing hubs, certification subsidies for cooperatives, export facilitation for niche biodiversity products, and formal recognition of biodiversity crops within national agricultural policy. Above all, safflower must be framed not as a narrow crop intervention, but as a climate resilience, gender inclusion, and rural stability strategy. In Saffenergy’s framing, safflower is ultimately not just about farming—it is about restoring dignity, rebuilding resilience after trauma, and creating rural economies capable of healing both people and land. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3482/abs-reform-is-missing-link-in-indias-plant-based-innovation-story.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3482/abs-reform-is-missing-link-in-indias-plant-based-innovation-story.html Tue, 16 Dec 2025 10:15:13 +0530 In an exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Sanjaya Mariwala, Executive Chairman and Managing Director of OmniActive Health Technologies, argues that India’s Biodiversity Act is quietly evolving from a policing statute into a potential industrial policy lever for plant-based innovation. He credits the 2023 amendments for easing compliance, aligning approvals with innovation cycles, and legitimising cultivated crops and traditional knowledge—but warns that fragmented state-level ABS practices still deter scale and global investment. Mariwala makes the case for a national ABS code, digital single-window compliance, and reward-linked reductions for companies investing in cultivation and conservation, shifting biodiversity from a cost centre to a competitive advantage. On R&D, he stresses that clarity on Digital Sequence Information, uniform research exemptions, and shared biofoundries are essential if India is to replicate its pharma success in botanicals, nutraceuticals, and functional ingredients. His message is blunt: Without predictable regulation, traceable supply chains, and incentives for value addition, India risks remaining a raw-material supplier even as rivals like Brazil and Thailand race ahead in the global bioeconomy. Biodiversity Act as an Industrial Policy Tool Can the Biodiversity Act evolve from a compliance framework into an enabling policy that accelerates India’s plant-based sectors—nutraceuticals, botanicals, plant proteins, phytopharma, and bio-based materials? What key amendments or guidelines would catalyse this shift? It is already moving in this direction, but the process needs further refinement. The Biological Diversity (Amendment) Act, 2023, brought about three important structural changes. First, it began with the removal of punitive measures and their replacement with financial penalties ranging from Rs 1 lakh to Rs 50 lakh. This change reshapes the act from a deterrence perspective to one of compliance. Second, it introduced key exemptions for cultivated crops, for codified traditional knowledge, and for AYUSH practitioners. These exemptions are designed to encourage domestic innovation and legitimise traditional practices without administrative overreach. Third, it aligned the Act with innovation cycles by requiring NBA approval before the grant of IPR, not before filing. This allows Indian entities to file patents without bureaucratic delays, while foreign applicants still require prior approval. However, the real bottleneck is state-level variability. With 8,610 licensed herbal manufacturing units operating across India, differences in interpretation across State Biodiversity Boards (SBBs) create regulatory unpredictability, especially where ABS is determined case-by-case or increased for “high economic value” species. To convert the Act into an industrial accelerator, India needs: A national ABS code with fixed, uniform rates A digital single-window platform (the proposed Biodiversity Compliance Exchange) to bring transparency, standard timelines, and predictable costs A reward-linked model where companies investing in cultivation and conservation receive measurable ABS reductions This is how the Act can shift from policing to enabling, but only if stakeholders demand a unified national ABS code, transparent compliance systems, and active reward mechanisms for conservation investments. It is time for industry, government, and researchers to work together and advocate for these changes. De-risking R&D for Plant-Based Innovation India’s botanical R&D pipeline is modest compared to its biodiversity. What national policies—DSI guidelines, standardised approvals, research exemptions, shared biofoundries—could unlock world-scale innovation in plant-based actives and functional ingredients? Three elements matter in R&D: access, clarity, and infrastructure. The 2025 Biological Diversity Regulations recognise Digital Sequence Information (DSI) as a "biological resource", but importantly, they exempt academic research from benefit-sharing, ensuring fundamental science is not disrupted. This clarity is essential because genomic and metabolomic research are the backbone of new plant-derived actives. The Act also provides research exemptions for non-commercial bio surveys and academic studies, but these must be made uniformly applicable across all states to avoid uncertainty for institutions and startups. The next step is shared infrastructure. There is a need for bio-conservatories, seed banks, biosafety labs, shared bio foundries, and pilot-scale bioprocessing facilities. These are critical for SMEs, which often cannot afford large-scale fermentation units or botanical extraction facilities on their own. India’s pharmaceutical capabilities demonstrate what coordinated R&D ecosystems can achieve. India already produces one-third of the world’s pills and over 65 per cent of global vaccines. A similar ecosystem for plant-based actives supported by predictable access, rapid approvals and shared facilities can unlock world-scale innovation. Cultivation Over Extraction: A Policy Turning Point India still depends heavily on wild-sourced plants. What policy levers—contract farming incentives, carbon-linked subsidies, insurance schemes, guaranteed buyback mechanisms—can accelerate the shift to regenerative, large-scale cultivation of medicinal, aromatic, and functional crops? The Act now provides a strong policy foundation. Cultivated biological resources are exempt from ABS, which makes formal cultivation far more attractive than wild collection for industry players. The next step is to incentivise cultivation through: Contract farming for medicinal and aromatic plants Guaranteed buyback arrangements to reduce farmer risk Crop insurance schemes tailored to high-value species Carbon-linked incentives, since sustainable cultivation can generate biodiversity and carbon credits that reduce financing costs It all hinges upon the following completely transformative idea: The provision of a reduction in ABS in accordance with substantiated farming and ex-situ conservation. An enterprise that invests in farming threatened species under section 38 of the Act should be able to reduce its ABS burden. This also applies to any cultivated crop. Every project should be linked to development investment by every enterprise in contract cultivation. This will establish a positive feedback loop where investing in conservation makes economic sense rather than merely being a compliance activity. We already have a proof of concept. The experience of the Kani tribe—where benefit-sharing for the Jeevani formulation ensured local protection of the resource—shows that conservation thrives when incentives align with community and industry interests. Moving cultivation to the centre is not only sound environmental policy but also essential for long-term supply security. Stakeholders must now push for targeted incentives, drive investment in regenerative practices, and ensure that policy reforms prioritise large-scale, sustainable cultivation as the future of India's plant-based industry. ABS Designed for Scale, Not Stasis Non-uniform ABS fees and multi-layer approvals discourage industry investment. Should India adopt a national ABS code with fixed rates and digital processing to make compliance predictable and attractive for plant-based companies? The need for scale arises based on the predictability that comes with it. Currently, there are discrepancies in ABS evaluations across the states, leading to what can be perceived as “regulatory arbitrage” where companies can shift operations based on jurisdictional leniency or clarity. The 2025 Regulations begin with the proper framework in terms of fixed slabs of ABS based on turnover (0.2 per cent to 0.6 per cent in the case of large assessees) and exemptions up to turnover of Rs 5 crore. Although such a framework works well, there needs to be uniformity nationwide. It will remove any scope for subjective interpretation and ensure low-risk compliance by MSMEs. Otherwise, India will continue to demonstrate “world-class” intention but lackadaisical execution. It will continue to confuse the global fraternity as to whether it has the “capability” or “systems” in place. Global Competitiveness: India vs. Brazil, Vietnam, Thailand Competitor nations are aggressively scaling plant-based bioindustries. What policy steps are essential for India to compete in high-growth segments like curcumin, ashwagandha, moringa, plant proteins, and natural colours—beyond raw material exports? Three areas require immediate attention. First, cluster-based development: One model that India can follow to reduce the issues related to domestic manufacture and distribution is the “BCG model” in the Thai market, where there are clusters developed based on the region that specialises in a certain kind of crop or bioindustry. These clusters can include turmeric in Karnataka, ashwagandha in Rajasthan, or moringa in Tamil Nadu. The formation of these clusters requires research on the market potential of each product. This work must be undertaken jointly by the Ministry of AYUSH, the Ministry of Food Processing, and the Ministry of Commerce. Each cluster could have three to four crops and a primary processing industry. Second, value-added exports: It is important that India moves ahead in the global trade from raw botanical supplies to traceable, scientifically attested, and standardised ingredients. The Indian nutraceutical industry already employs over 3 million people and utilises close to a thousand botanical plant species, but most exports are in raw or less-processed form. To incentivise higher value addition, the ABS system should be structured so that basic commodity exporters pay the highest ABS, with the levy decreasing progressively as the level of value addition increases. Third, global compliance readiness: Import rules under the European Union require verification that plant-based goods are deforestation-free and geolocation-tagged to confirm their origin.  If we want to encourage exports, we need to align our local rules to meet the needs of such regulations being formed across major markets. This responsibility again rests with the Ministry of Commerce. Our interests in such a case would be best served if FTAs incorporate provisions that allow negotiation of these regulatory obligations as part of the agreement. The supply chains in India need traceability and GPS-tagged farm data, as well as sustainability certifications, in order to maintain competitiveness in exports. In other words, achieving these three changes will help India shift from being a large raw material provider to becoming an innovation hub in high-value plants. Reimagining Community Participation in Value Creation How can India move beyond transactional ABS payouts to truly participatory models—community-owned plantations, co-operative extraction units, shared IP rights—that make local communities' economic partners in the rise of the plant-based bioeconomy? India’s biodiversity prosperity depends heavily on the communities that live closest to it. Instead of transactional ABS payments, participation should be embedded into value chains. The next step is to incentivise cultivation through: Community-owned plantations and cooperatives,especially for species that require careful stewardship Co-managed extraction units, where communities run primary processing supported by industry partners Shared IP rights, following global models where indigenous communities become co-owners in patents when traditional knowledge is involved Community Protocols, enabling communities to set terms of access for biological resources and knowledge Reverse ABS structure, which imposes higher rates on low value-added exports and lowered or no ABS on higher value exports, should be the regime to be established. Building Trusted, Traceable, Export-Ready Value Chains Global buyers demand traceability, residue-free cultivation, and proof of conservation outcomes. What regulatory upgrades—digital traceability mandates, bioresource certification, ESG-linked incentives—are required for India to secure premium export markets? Traceability has emerged as the need of the hour. The Deforestation Regulation in the European Union makes it mandatory for importers to submit geolocation data regarding all farms in the supply chain, causing a shift in trade equations. India needs three regulatory upgrades: Digital traceability mandates using GPS-tagged farm plots, blockchain-based sourcing logs and integrated systems linked to APEDA export portals. National bioresource certification standards are aligned with global due diligence requirements. ESG-linked incentives reward residue-free cultivation and regenerative agriculture. We already have a strong precedent: India’s pharmaceutical export ecosystem meets stringent global standards. The same level of traceability and compliance needs to follow botanical, nutraceutical, and plant-based ingredients. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3464/states-expand-snap-federal-taxpayers-pay-price-cato-economist-flags-deep-structural-flaws.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3464/states-expand-snap-federal-taxpayers-pay-price-cato-economist-flags-deep-structural-flaws.html Wed, 10 Dec 2025 11:43:10 +0530 In an exclusive interview with AgroSpectrum, Romina Boccia, Director of Budget and Entitlement Policy at the Cato Institute, reinforced the core argument of her recent paper, “The SNAP Loophole That Lets Millionaires Receive Food Stamps”: that Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE) has fundamentally eroded SNAP’s policy safeguards by allowing states to sidestep federal income and asset limits. Citing evidence that 43 states and DC have adopted BBCE—most eliminating asset tests entirely—she noted that the loophole now enables millions of households with significant financial resources to qualify for SNAP, including more than 5 million participants whose assets exceed federal thresholds. While sensational cases of millionaire or lottery-winner beneficiaries are statistically rare, Romina stressed that they symbolize a deeper structural problem: states can expand eligibility by linking SNAP to minimal TANF-funded services such as brochures or hotline numbers, yet Washington continues to pay 100 percent of SNAP benefit costs. This misalignment of incentives, she argued, has contributed to long-term caseload expansion, improper payments, and a steady weakening of program integrity. Romina reiterated the article’s call for restoring federal asset limits—an approach supported by 73 percent of U.S. voters—but emphasized that tightening BBCE is only a partial fix. The larger flaw is fiscal: states enjoy the political upside of appearing generous, while federal taxpayers shoulder the financial burden. To realign incentives and ensure that nutritional assistance reaches the truly needy, she advocated for devolving SNAP to the states through block grants and gradually shifting benefit financing to state budgets. According to Romina, think tanks like the Cato Institute play an essential role in exposing systemic inefficiencies in federal programs, quantifying the cost of loopholes such as BBCE—estimated to range from $10 billion to $112 billion over ten years—and advancing market-driven reforms that promote accountability, prudent fiscal management, and genuine economic mobility for vulnerable households. Romina, your research highlights how Broad-Based Categorical Eligibility (BBCE) allows states to bypass federal asset limits, sometimes letting households with substantial wealth—including lottery winners and retirees with significant savings—receive SNAP benefits. How widespread is this issue, and what are the broader implications for program integrity and taxpayer trust?  Millionaires and lottery winners on SNAP are rare, but the Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) estimated in 2023 that ~5.4 million SNAP participants were enrolled through BBCE. This means that over 10 percent of SNAP participants did not meet the program’s own statutory income/asset standards, but still received benefits. The millions of people on SNAP through BBCE is one of many factors, including looser state-level eligibility standards, that have contributed to SNAP’s massive caseload expansion since 2000. As a result, over 40 million Americans, or 1 in 8, rely on the federal government to help them pay for their groceries. The BBCE loophole is emblematic of SNAP's lack of accountability. States share administrative costs with the federal government, giving them the incentive to simplify their paperwork with options like BBCE to streamline eligibility checks. However, they have little stake in controlling enrollment growth or enforcing eligibility standards because federal taxpayers, not the states, pay for the benefits that flow to those brought onto SNAP rolls through those looser rules. Estimates suggest up to 4 million SNAP recipients under BBCE have assets above federal thresholds. From a policy standpoint, should the priority be enforcing stricter federal asset limits, or addressing the structural incentives that encourage states to expand eligibility?  Closing the BBCE loophole to enforce SNAP’s eligibility standards is a good start, but it will not solve the problems embedded in SNAP’s financing structure that gave states the incentive to abuse BBCE in the first place. States have little incentive to enforce eligibility standards or cut costs because the federal government pays 100 percent of the program’s benefits. This leaves states insulated from the financial consequences of their policy choices. OBBBA’s matching fund requirements for states with high improper payments were a good start, but the best way to resolve SNAP's incentive problems is to fully devolve SNAP to the states and hold them accountable for their eligibility decisions.   BBCE links SNAP eligibility to participation in programs like TANF, even when TANF thresholds exceed SNAP’s statutory limits. Do you consider this a design flaw in SNAP itself, or a symptom of deeper federal-state misalignment in welfare policy?  BBCE was initially intended to streamline SNAP administration by eliminating duplicative paperwork for caseworkers, but states have used it to make federal taxpayers pay for backdoor benefit expansions. BBCE, however, is a symptom of a structural incentive misalignment in SNAP and the entire federal-state welfare system. When authority and responsibility diverge, this creates a principal-agent problem. States reap the political benefits of appearing generous through broad benefit expansions but bear few of the financial consequences of paying for them. States further lack accountability for the improper payments and waste that result from inadequate program oversight. Devolving SNAP and other welfare programs to the states is the best way to align incentives with program integrity. Fiscal conservatives have argued that devolving SNAP to the states via block grants could better align benefit authority with financial responsibility. How realistic is this approach politically and economically, and what mechanisms could ensure that needy households are not disadvantaged under state discretion?  The 1996 welfare reforms showed that block-granting major assistance programs is not only politically achievable, but, more importantly, an optimal solution to help the economically disadvantaged. TANF’s remarkable success in increasing employment and reducing poverty for low-income families while drastically reducing caseloads proves that giving states the authority to design their programs empowers them to create assistance programs that are more responsive, targeted, and effective in meeting the local needs of their constituents. Given that some states have abolished asset tests entirely under BBCE, what structural reforms would you recommend to prevent high-asset households from receiving SNAP, while maintaining flexibility for genuinely low-income, asset-rich households who might still need temporary support?  States should bear the full cost of their programs. States are abolishing asset tests to expand SNAP eligibility and have little incentive to prevent high-asset households from receiving benefits because Washington is paying for those benefits. The best way to ensure SNAP benefits go to the truly vulnerable and, more importantly, help recipients achieve self-sufficiency, is to give states a financial stake in doing so. States should have the flexibility to experiment with their programs, including setting asset limits, to determine the best way to tailor assistance to meet the needs of individual recipients. But they should be the ones picking up the tab rather than passing the bill to federal taxpayers. Giving states fiscal responsibility for their welfare programs would incentivize them to either scale back their programs to empower private solutions, or design their assistance to help people rise out of poverty, rather than expanding benefits to capture more federal funding. Analysts suggest potential savings from repealing BBCE range from $10 billion to $112 billion over a decade. How should policymakers balance these savings against the potential risk of excluding households on the margin of need, particularly in economically vulnerable populations?  Repealing BBCE to prevent high-asset households from receiving SNAP benefits is a start, but policymakers should focus on getting welfare programs like SNAP out of Washington. When states bear the full fiscal responsibility for their programs, giving benefits to non-needy households to maximize enrollment becomes expensive, while assistance designed to reduce dependency becomes cost-efficient. Devolving SNAP will also give states the incentive to target aid to the truly vulnerable (the elderly, disabled, and low-income families with children), and design assistance for able-bodied adults as a launchpad to economic independence. SNAP’s current structure, where states administer programs while Washington pays, does the opposite. States are incentivized to maximize enrollment and government dependency to draw more federal dollars, but they have little reason to prioritize self-sufficiency. Decentralizing SNAP is the long-term solution to fixing not just BBCE, but the entire broken incentive structure of federal-state welfare policy. The current structure creates an incentive for states to expand benefits while federal taxpayers foot the bill. In your view, what concrete policy reforms could better align state incentives with fiscal responsibility, without compromising SNAP’s goal of supporting the most vulnerable populations?  Congress should convert SNAP from an open-ended entitlement program into a block grant and gradually reduce the federal government’s share of funding the program’s benefits. This will give states both the flexibility and the fiscal responsibility to determine which forms of support best help the most vulnerable. This includes empowering civil society, such as charities, nonprofits, and private organizations, to craft more responsive and effective forms of assistance than taxpayer-funded entitlements. If states opt to run their own nutritional assistance or other welfare programs, they should have the flexibility to tailor services to support recipients' self-sufficiency. The 1996 welfare reforms to TANF, for example, gave states significant discretion to direct funds toward supports beyond cash benefits, such as work and training programs, childcare, and other services they judged most effective at helping low-income families become self-reliant. Policy reforms that break free from one-size-fits-all federal approaches and empower local, community-based solutions are the best way to promote upward mobility and empower individuals to lift themselves out of poverty. Finally, what role do think tanks and independent policy research institutions like Cato play in shaping the national debate on SNAP reform, particularly regarding BBCE, asset verification, and the potential devolution of the program to states?  The Cato Institute provides independent analysis that cuts through political narratives, highlights structural flaws in federal policy, and offers concrete solutions for how to fix them to government decision-makers in Congress and the Executive. We provide data-driven reforms grounded in the power of free markets, individual liberty, fiscal discipline, and constitutional federalism. Shifting authority from the federal government to state and local levels offers a more effective framework for addressing poverty because local communities are better positioned to meet people’s specific needs and deliver more responsive, targeted assistance than federal programs. More importantly, removing government-created barriers to upward mobility and empowering free markets is a far more effective way to promote economic opportunity for low-income individuals than any top-down wealth redistribution program. -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3463/dr-markandeya-gorantla-on-how-semiophore-will-make-india-epicenter-of-sustainable-pest-management.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3463/dr-markandeya-gorantla-on-how-semiophore-will-make-india-epicenter-of-sustainable-pest-management.html Tue, 09 Dec 2025 13:34:59 +0530 In an exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Dr. Markandeya Gorantla, Chairman & Managing Director of ATGC Biotech, outlines how the newly formed Semiophore JV with Luxembourg Industries marks India’s first global-scale out-licensing of semiochemical IP and positions the country at the forefront of next-generation, residue-free pest management. He explains that the partnership merges ATGC’s decade-long leadership in pheromone biomanufacturing and controlled-release systems with Israel’s formidable regulatory and commercial networks, creating a platform capable of scaling 18 breakthrough technologies across world markets. Dr. Gorantla highlights the JV’s sustainability edge—from ultra-low-dose, zero-water delivery to massive reductions in CO₂e, plastic waste, and insecticide load—supported by rigorous field data and lifecycle metrics. Looking ahead, he notes that Semiophore’s long-term roadmap spans next-generation pheromone chemistry, automated deployment, and climate-smart pest-management platforms, aiming to redefine global crop protection and unlock multi-billion-dollar opportunities for India and Israel. Strategic Vision & Rationale What was the strategic rationale behind forming the Semiophore JV with Luxembourg Industries, and how does this partnership position ATGC Biotech in the global semiochemical and pheromone market ? The formation of Semiophore Ltd. with Luxembourg Industries is a strategic step that aligns ATGC’s scientific leadership with a global commercialization engine capable of taking India’s semiochemical technologies to international markets at scale. ATGC has spent more than a decade building deep capabilities in pheromone biomanufacturing, synthetic biology, and material-science–driven controlled-release systems, areas in which India had no industrial presence prior to our work. Luxembourg Industries, on the other hand, brings more than 50 years of global experience in manufacturing, regulatory operations, and distribution across Israel, Europe, MENA, Latin America, and the United States. The rationale behind Semiophore is to combine India’s innovation strengths with Israel’s proven commercial networks in agriculture, enabling a partnership that neither company could achieve independently. The JV positions ATGC at the forefront of the global pheromone market one of the fastest-growing segments in sustainable agriculture. It allows India not only to compete, but to lead, in an area historically dominated by European and North American players. Semiophore represents India’s first international-scale out-licensing of semiochemical IP, a major milestone in India’s bioeconomy journey and a strong signal of confidence in the scientific quality of Indian innovation. Technology Differentiation Semiophore will deploy 18 advanced semiochemical and pheromone technologies. Could you elaborate on how these technologies differ from conventional chemical pest management methods in terms of efficacy, sustainability, and adoption potential? The 18 technologies being deployed through Semiophore represent a fundamentally different approach to crop protection compared to conventional pesticides. Traditional insecticides operate through chemical toxicity they kill insects through neurotoxic or metabolic disruption and require large quantities, repeated spraying, water usage, and leave behind residues that affect human health, export compliance, and ecosystems. In contrast, ATGC’s pheromone and semiochemical platforms work through behavioral ecology rather than toxicity. By interfering with the mating communication of pests what we describe as “Insect Family Planning” we prevent population buildup without killing beneficial organisms. This is a nature-aligned solution, not a chemical intervention. Our technologies require just 5 grams per acre, compared to hundreds of grams of conventional pesticides. They offer season-long (up to 6 months) protection through advanced controlled-release systems made from mesoporous materials, nano-enabled matrices, and semi-solid emulsion delivery platforms. They require zero water, eliminating the need for spray equipment and mitigating runoff. This combination of ultra-low dose, zero residues, and long-duration control positions the technology as one of the most sustainable pest management systems available worldwide, with adoption potential across smallholder and commercial agriculture. Global Market Deployment: Expected Challenges With regulatory approvals and registrations planned across Israel, Brazil, Australia, and Africa, what are the major scientific, regulatory, or market challenges you anticipate in scaling these technologies internationally? Scaling semiochemical technologies across Israel, Brazil, Australia, and Africa involves navigating scientific, regulatory, and market complexities. Scientifically, pheromone systems are highly pest-specific. Each geography has different climatic conditions temperature, humidity, canopy structure that influence release kinetics and behavioral response. Semiophore will work closely with agricultural universities, entomology departments, and local regulators to optimize dose, spacing, and delivery parameters for each region. From a regulatory standpoint, every country has its own framework for approving biochemical pesticides, which requires field trials, toxicology assessments, environmental impact data, and manufacturing audits. ATGC’s existing regulatory experience in the US, India, and multiple international programs provides a strong foundation for navigating these pathways. Marketwise, the largest challenge is behavioral farmers are accustomed to chemical sprays. Semiophore will address this through demonstration farms, season-long monitoring, and extension partnerships that show the tangible economic benefits of shifting to pheromone-based systems. Despite these challenges, the global shift toward residue-free, climate-positive agriculture creates unprecedented demand for precisely the technologies ATGC has developed. Sustainability Impact & Metrics Semiophore emphasizes residue-free, pollinator-safe, and climate-resilient crop protection. How do you quantify or measure the environmental benefits—such as reduced insecticide use, lower CO₂e, water, and plastic footprint—of these technologies? Semiophore’s technologies are inherently sustainable because they eliminate the externalities associated with conventional chemical pesticides. We quantify these benefits using a combination of field data, lifecycle assessment, and modeling. Insecticide reduction is measured by comparing conventional spray schedules with 8 to 15 sprays totaling hundreds of grams of active ingredient against pheromone technologies that require only 5 grams per acre. CO₂e avoidance is calculated from reductions in chemical synthesis, transportation, storage, and repeated spraying operations. Based on ATGC’s current deployments, we estimate 2.5 million tons of CO₂e could be avoided as the technology scales. Water savings come directly from the zero-water nature of the system; farmers no longer rely on 200–400 liters of water per spray round. Across millions of acres, this results in over 20 billion liters of water saved. Plastic waste reduction is measured through reduced pesticide container usage, eliminating up to 40,000 tons of plastic annually in large-scale programs. Together, these metrics create a compelling climate and ESG case for Semiophore, opening the door to carbon-credit generation, green financing, and sustainability-linked partnerships. Adoption by Farmers What strategies will Semiophore employ to drive adoption among smallholders and large-scale growers, particularly in regions where conventional chemical pest control is entrenched? Adoption depends on demonstrating a clear, tangible difference in farmer outcomes. Semiophore will deploy a multi-layered adoption strategy. For smallholders, the focus will be on simplicity and cost: A 5-gram product that requires no water Season-long control No need for repeated spraying Compatibility with organic and IPM systems These advantages significantly reduce farmer labor, costs, and risk. For large-scale growers, the emphasis is on export compliance and predictability. Pheromone solutions eliminate residues, protect pollinators, and reduce variability in pest pressure critical factors for global markets. Semiophore will also deploy drone-based deployment systems and automation for plantation crops. The JV will work closely with government programs, cooperatives, and agricultural extension networks, supported by strong data dashboards and field teams. Demonstration plots will serve as the anchor of adoption strategy, showing farmers real-season results. Innovation, IP, and R&D Leadership How will ATGC Biotech’s IP, R&D, and technology leadership be leveraged within the JV to ensure continuous innovation and competitive advantage in the global semiochemical space? ATGC contributes a deep technology stack to Semiophore: 26 granted patents, multiple international filings, and some of the world’s most advanced biochemical delivery systems. Our synthetic biology platform enables cost-efficient pheromone biomanufacturing an area where traditional chemical synthesis has historically been expensive. Semiophore will benefit not only from ATGC’s existing innovations but from a continuous pipeline of next-generation technologies: enhanced blends, improved release kinetics, hybrid peptide pheromone solutions, nano-enabled matrices, and drone compatible formats. The JV structure ensures that ATGC retains IP ownership while providing Semiophore with global commercialization rights. This creates a competitive moat that strengthens over time, allowing the JV to lead the semiochemical space with sustained innovation. Commercial & Economic Impact Could you share projections for revenue, market capture, and job creation across India and Israel, and how the JV aims to create measurable socio-economic impact in these regions? The Semiophore JV is expected to catalyze significant economic gains for both India and Israel. In India, it will expand ATGC’s R&D, regulatory, and manufacturing footprint, creating jobs in synthetic biology, analytical chemistry, formulation science, engineering, agronomy, and field operations. The India-based manufacturing and export ecosystem will grow as new markets scale. In Israel, the JV will generate new employment opportunities in manufacturing, quality control, agronomy, regulatory affairs, and distribution. It will also strengthen Israel’s portfolio of sustainable agricultural inputs, opening export channels for green technologies. The global semiochemical market is projected to surpass USD 10–12 billion over the coming decade; Semiophore aims to capture a meaningful share of this through differentiated technologies and strategic international partnerships. Long-term Roadmap & Expansion Beyond the initial 18 products, what is the long-term vision for Semiophore in terms of expanding the portfolio, integrating next-generation delivery systems, and shaping the global landscape of sustainable, behavior-based crop protection? Semiophore’s long-term vision extends far beyond the initial set of 18 products. The JV will progressively expand into: Next-generation pheromone blends Solid and semi-solid delivery systems optimized for varied climates Encapsulated peptides, kairomones, and biological synergists Automated application technologies, including drones and ground rigs End-to-end precision-pest-management platforms Integrated climate-smart solutions aligned with carbon markets The end goal is to build the world’s most advanced behavior-based crop protection platform one that replaces chemical insecticides across millions of acres while enabling nations to meet their sustainability and climate targets. -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3455/brazils-biologicals-at-inflection-point-marcelo-de-godoy-oliveiras-vision-for-high-science-high-quality-bioeconomy.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3455/brazils-biologicals-at-inflection-point-marcelo-de-godoy-oliveiras-vision-for-high-science-high-quality-bioeconomy.html Fri, 05 Dec 2025 15:30:33 +0530 In an exclusive Agrospectrum interview, Marcelo de Godoy Oliveira, President of ABINBIO, explains that Brazil’s more than 30 per cent bioinputs surge is driven by pest pressure, chemical resistance, fertilizer dependence, and rapid scientific advances. He stresses that strict MAPA–industry oversight is essential to prevent a “wild west” of substandard products as the sector scales. Brazil’s biodiversity, combined with strong public–private R&D and emerging IP frameworks in gene editing, positions the country for global leadership. Marcelo highlights that biologicals in Brazil already deliver >90 per cent positive ROI in monitored applications and are fast becoming core to decarbonisation strategies. Looking ahead to 2035, he predicts only companies with deep science, industrial scale, and elite agronomic support will survive in a rapidly maturing market. Market Dynamics & Inflection Point Brazil’s bioinputs market is growing 30 per cent + annually even as global agrichem slows. What is the real inflection point—scientific breakthroughs, fertiliser volatility, climate pressures, or structural shifts in Brazil’s agri-economy ? The growth in bio-input use in Brazil is associated with four fundamental factors. The first factor relates to the significant increase in pest and disease incidence in agricultural systems. Being a tropical climate country, Brazil develops high-intensity agriculture, characterized by so-called "green bridges," which offer constant food supply for the accelerated proliferation of pests. Consequently, there is an increase in the number of pesticide applications in crops. This scenario leads to the second factor: the development of pest and disease resistance to chemical pesticides, resulting from continuous and repeated exposure to these products. Faced with this, rural producers begin seeking complementary management tools, such as biodefensives, to achieve greater efficacy in controlling phytopathogenic agents. The third factor is related to the country's high dependence on fertilizer imports, combined with the high prices charged for these inputs. This situation encourages producers to seek alternatives that increase the utilization of nutrients already present in the soil or enhance the efficiency of applied fertilizers, allowing, in some cases, dose reduction. An example is the use of phosphorus solubilizers to reduce the need for phosphate fertilization. Finally, the fourth and, in my opinion, most important factor refers to the advancement of scientific research and development of microbiological technologies, as well as the modernization of manufacturing facilities dedicated to the sector. Brazilian industries have distinguished themselves through high production capacity, elevated technological level, and experienced professionals in manufacturing both pesticides and other microbiological inputs. The combination of these factors makes Brazil stand out globally in adoption, technological development, and business investment in the bio-inputs segment. Quality, Oversight & “Wild West” Risk With 400+ manufacturers and thousands of on-farm biofactories, how is ABINBIO working with MAPA to ensure enforceable quality standards and avoid a fragmented “wild west” of inconsistent products? Our work with the Federal Government aims to raise awareness about the importance of maintaining rigorous rules for bio-input production, preventing the entry or manufacture of low-quality products in the country. Brazil is a global reference in the microbiological segment applied to agribusiness, and therefore requires legislation that safeguards product quality and continuously stimulates technological development, guaranteeing effective and safe tools so that our main partner—the rural producer—achieves increasing success in their activity. Additionally, there is a determining factor for company competitiveness in the market: people. Producers will always prioritize technologies that deliver proven results and add intelligence to their operation. Therefore, companies that do not invest in high-performance professionals will hardly remain competitive in the long term, and this investment, while essential, requires resources. Finally, we have reinforced to the Federal Government that the national bio-inputs industry is a true diamond in the making, becoming an important source of income for countless Brazilian families. The sector has been generating a significant number of jobs, contributing directly to the country's social development. R&D Leadership & Microbiome Advantage Brazil’s biodiversity gives it a strong edge in nitrogen-fixing, phosphate-solubilising and pest-suppressive microbes. What R&D platforms, public–private models, or IP frameworks can convert this into true global competitive advantage ? Yes, our biodiversity favors us extraordinarily. Brazil has different biomes that function as true open-air collections, providing numerous discoveries of microbiological actives that stand out in performance when processed through our advanced bioprocesses, formulations, quality standards, and high industrial capacity. Additionally, we have highly qualified public institutions that support the identification and study of these new actives, such as Embrapa, globally recognized as a reference in the bio-inputs segment. Regarding intellectual property protection, we are working together with the government and advancing in the use of gene editing and genetic engineering techniques. When associated with microorganism functions and our formulations, these technologies make products patentable, creating an important level of protection. However, biopiracy is still a reality and will continue to be combated by both industry and Brazilian regulatory agencies. Biologicals vs Chemicals: Real Economics Growers report variable field results. What does the real economic equation look like—yield stability, input substitution and ROI—when biologicals complement or replace synthetics at scale ? We have a rigorous performance monitoring system, advanced quality control, well-defined technical positioning, and differentiated follow-up conducted by our field specialists. As a consequence, more than 90 per cent of our technology applications show positive results. This level of efficiency is reflected in a high repurchase rate, since ultimately, we manage to generate excellent return on investment for the producer. As for the substitution or combined use of chemical and biological products, this depends greatly on the segment. A clear example is the use of biological nematicides, which has been growing for several years and, in many cases, already replaces the use of conventional pesticides. I believe that in the near future, bio-inputs will replace chemicals in other segments as well. However, it is important to understand that our main objective is to support rural producers in their mission to produce more food for the world. And for this, the combination of chemical and biological tools—when well positioned and integrated—makes all the difference. Brazil as a Global Bioinputs Powerhouse Foreign firms are validating products under Brazil’s tropical stress conditions. Can Brazil become a global exporter of biological technologies? What capabilities—regulatory strength, manufacturing, consortium science—must improve ? We are exporting, each year, a greater volume of microbiological technologies to various international markets. I believe that soon Brazil will globally lead this segment, as large foreign companies have been seeking to establish strategic partnerships with us. This movement is only possible thanks to the high quality of our products, the large industrial capacity installed in the country, consistent investments in international registrations, and the development of strong regulatory expertise by our teams, who work closely with regulatory agencies in other countries. I have no doubt that the global bio-inputs market will be largely led by major Brazilian players in the coming years. Fast-Tracking vs Environmental Risk Brazil’s fast regulatory approvals accelerate innovation but raise biosafety concerns. Do rapid pathways risk blind spots, especially for microbial consortia and next-gen metabolic boosters ? The rapid approval of biodefensives in Brazil is only possible due to the excellent work developed by our regulatory agencies (MAPA, Anvisa, and IBAMA). Our legislation is strict and requires, in addition to efficacy tests, various toxicological and ecotoxicological tests, thus generating low environmental risk when the product is approved by these agencies. Soil Carbon, ESG & Bioeconomy Transition With tighter MRL norms and carbon-linked premiums emerging, will biologicals become central to Brazil’s ESG and decarbonisation strategy ? What policy tools could speed this transition ? Undoubtedly, bio-inputs play a critical role in decarbonization mechanisms, as they act directly in reducing GHG emissions associated with the use of energy-intensive inputs and increasing the biogeochemical efficiency of production systems. Growth-promoting microorganisms, solubilizers, biological nitrogen fixers, and biocontrol agents contribute to reducing CO₂, N₂O, and CH₄ emissions, while favoring carbon sequestration processes in soil through increased microbial biomass, enhanced aggregate stability, formation of humic substances, and improved nutrient cycling dynamics. For these impacts to be fully integrated into decarbonization policies, strengthening the regulatory and methodological framework is essential. Priority needs include: Enhancement of MRV (Measurement, Reporting, and Verification) protocols Inclusion of specific methodologies to quantify GHG reductions and removals resulting from bio-input application, with standardized parameters according to GHG Protocol, ISO 14064, ISO 14067, and LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) methodologies. Harmonization of certification rules Creation of regulatory flows that enable official recognition of these gains in instruments such as voluntary carbon markets and regulated programs (e.g., methodologies analogous to RenovaBio, REDD+, and Carbon Farming frameworks). Integration with government agencies and technical institutions Establishment of guidelines for credit monetization, including definitions of baseline, additionality, emission factors, permanence, and reversal risks, providing legal certainty to the industrial sector and producers. Official recognition of biotechnological pathways Formalization of emission reduction routes via nutrient solubilization, biological fixation, energy-intensive pest biocontrol, and root biostimulation processes, ensuring eligibility in carbon markets. The consolidation of these elements will allow bio-input use to be robustly incorporated into mitigation policies, increasing national industry competitiveness and positioning Brazil as a scientific, regulatory, and commercial leader in the global carbon market associated with agricultural biotechnology. The 2035 Horizon By 2035, what will separate leaders from laggards in Brazil’s bioinputs industry—strain IP, digital agronomy, consortium formulations, farmer extension networks, or something else? There is no doubt that in the coming years, the national industry will undergo an intense differentiation process, in which only the most structured companies will remain competitive. This movement will be driven by the launch of truly disruptive technologies, the high production capacity of our industries, and the qualification of technical service offered to producers. Increasingly, rural producers will demand highly skilled professionals—well-compensated and up-to-date agronomists who bring not just products, but applied scientific knowledge to all areas of their business. These factors will be decisive in separating the wheat from the chaff, resulting in a competitive market, but one of higher quality and with fewer competitors. Although many wish to enter the bio-inputs sector, few have investment capacity, operational robustness, and technical preparation to maintain and grow, especially given the challenges faced in recent years. In other words, by 2035, only truly strong and technically prepared players will survive. -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3449/zero-waste-gourmet-how-parmesan-rinds-corn-cobs-and-vegetable-stems-are-becoming-culinary-gold.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3449/zero-waste-gourmet-how-parmesan-rinds-corn-cobs-and-vegetable-stems-are-becoming-culinary-gold.html Thu, 04 Dec 2025 15:53:09 +0530 In a world where climate pledges are tightening, supply chains are wobbling under the weight of ecological pressure, and consumers are dissecting the ethics of every bite they take, an unlikely protagonist is stepping into the sustainability spotlight: The humble kitchen scrap. Parmesan rinds, corn cobs, mushroom stems, carrot tops — the culinary castoffs that once met an unceremonious end in the compost bin — are now being reimagined as the building blocks of a new gastronomic economy. What was once waste is becoming wealth. What was once dismissed is being elevated. And what was once an afterthought is rapidly becoming a frontline strategy in the global conversation on food, flavor, and resource intelligence. This renaissance is not driven by sentimentality or nostalgia. It is driven by taste, economics, and a growing impatience with the inefficiencies embedded in modern cooking. Zero-waste cuisine has existed for centuries, largely as a quiet wisdom passed down through home kitchens and grandmother logic. Michelin-starred chefs are designing entire tasting menus around “secondary” ingredients, proving that carrot peels and leek tops are every bit as capable of delivering complexity as their more photogenic counterparts. Food multinationals are investing in upcycled ingredient pipelines, turning citrus peels into premium extracts and vegetable stems into functional flavor bases. The thesis animating this movement is elegantly subversive: Flavor has no hierarchy. A corn cob is not lesser than a kernel; a Parmesan rind is not inferior to the wedge it encases. Flavor is democratic, distributed, and often hiding in the places we were taught to ignore. What began as a sustainability whisper has grown into a culinary roar. The rise of zero-waste cooking is no longer a trend; it is a structural realignment, a philosophical pivot, and a sensory revolution. It is reminding us — with the force of both data and deliciousness — that the future of food may lie not in new ingredients, but in old ones we simply overlooked. The Economic Rationale: Why Scraps Make Sense Now A perfect storm of forces is propelling zero-waste cooking from the fringes of sustainability discourse into the beating heart of mainstream food culture. Global food inflation — no longer a temporary spike but a structural reality — has recalibrated how consumers value every ingredient on the chopping board. Food waste, now estimated to swallow a staggering one-third of all food produced worldwide, is morphing from an ethical embarrassment into a fully fledged economic and regulatory liability. At the same time, a cultural shift is underway: consumers hungry for authenticity, craftsmanship, and ingredient transparency are gravitating toward practices that feel both honest and ingenious. Zero-waste cooking sits precisely at that intersection. “Banana peels are one of my favorite undercover ingredients — a brilliant plant-based ‘meat’ if you treat them right. Wash them well, slice or shred, then sauté with onions and garlic until they soften and take on that gorgeous golden edge. Hit them with tomato paste, spices, and a splash of broth, and they turn silky, savory, and shockingly satisfying. Parmesan rinds? That’s pure umami currency. I drop them into stocks for depth, or shave them thin and microwave them into crispy, salty wafers that disappear in seconds. Corn cobs work harder than most people realize. Simmer them with a little sugar and water and you’ve got a beautiful, naturally sweet corn syrup for cocktails or dessert glazes — and the spent cobs add a subtle, smoky dimension when tossed into the grill. Also please don’t ever throw away onion skins, garlic peels, or herb stems. Blend them into a paste, sauté in fat, season well — that becomes the foundation, the soul, the quiet bass note that makes any meat dish sing.” --- Toni Marie ElKhouri, Owner and Executive Chef of Cedars Café ; Award winning chef that specializes in sustainable & low waste northern Lebanese & Mediterranean cuisine The economic opportunity hidden in scraps is immense — bordering on untapped gold. Take Parmigiano-Reggiano, a global icon with more than 4 million wheels produced each year. About 8 to 12 percent of every wheel is rind, a hard, rugged outer layer brimming with concentrated umami, aromatic oils, and structural integrity. That means tens of thousands of tonnes of culinary potential quietly shaving away at dairy factories — a resource so flavorful that chefs guard it like bullion, yet one that rarely makes its way into home kitchens. Or consider corn. With over 1.2 billion metric tons produced globally, corn is one of the world’s most powerful agricultural engines. The cob alone accounts for roughly 15 percent of the plant’s biomass. And yet, the cob — an ingredient capable of yielding silk-textured broths and sweet, velvety infusions — is almost entirely absent from the mainstream culinary economy. Even at the microeconomic level of the household, the numbers are startling. Studies consistently show that families discard between 15 and 25 percent of the edible food they bring home. Not because it has spoiled, but because confusion, habit, and aesthetic bias lead us to misjudge what is truly usable. Much of what lands in the bin is not trash but flavor — dormant, disguised, and waiting to be activated. This is why zero-waste cooking is evolving beyond sustainability rhetoric. It is fast becoming an economic strategy with measurable impact. Households that rethink scraps can cut grocery costs meaningfully. Restaurants leveraging stems, peels, and trimmings can slash overheads without compromising — indeed, often enhancing — culinary quality. Food companies that upcycle rinds, pulps, and peels into premium ingredients are unlocking entirely new revenue verticals in a market hungry for both thrift and flavor. We are no longer dealing with a trend of ethical goodwill. We are watching the architecture of a new food economy take shape — one built on the radical premise that nothing natural is ever truly waste until we fail to imagine its value. The Flavor Frontier: What Gourmet Chefs Always Knew For decades, the world’s leading chefs have guarded a quiet secret — one that feels almost radical in an era obsessed with perfect produce aesthetics and Instagram-ready plating. Scraps are not waste. Scraps are strategy. They are flavor reservoirs hiding in plain sight. The modern zero-waste gourmet revolution didn’t emerge from environmentalism alone. It emerged from taste — from the recognition that the most intense, concentrated flavor compounds are rarely found in the polished, photogenic cuts supermarkets train us to buy. Instead, they’re wrapped inside the rinds, the cobs, the stems, the peels — the overlooked parts that rarely make it past the cutting board. The truth is, chefs have always known this, and they’ve been quietly orchestrating culinary magic from what most of us casually discard. Parmesan rinds, corn cobs, vegetable stems, mushroom stems, citrus peels — these are far from mere scraps. They are the hidden alchemy of flavor, the secret chords that transform simple ingredients into symphonies of taste. They carry depth, texture, and aroma that no shortcut, no processed powder, no pre-grated convenience can ever replicate. In professional kitchens, every simmer, every braise, every careful infusion is a deliberate act of culinary physics. Broths bloom with the slow-release glutamates of cheese rinds. Chowders gain silkiness from corn cob starches. Sauces and pestos build scaffolding from vegetable stems. Mushroom stems provide the earthy bass notes that elevate the simplest dishes into indulgent, forest-floor luxury. Citrus peels, when charred or candied, infuse brightness and perfume that linger long after the plate is cleared. Leftovers become legend, byproducts transform into treasures, and the kitchen becomes a laboratory of relentless, joyous experimentation. It is an orchestration of taste, a celebration of the overlooked, and a manifesto for turning every ingredient, however humble, into gold. For those who understand it, nothing is wasted; everything is potential, waiting to reveal its hidden brilliance trying to tell us for years. Modern cookbooks rarely capture the messy, improvisational brilliance of real kitchens, but from Kyoto to Copenhagen, the greatest culinary minds have lived by an unspoken principle: Waste is a cultural invention, not a culinary truth. Massimo Bottura — the rebellious Italian maestro behind Osteria Francescana and the Food for Soul movement — stands at the forefront of this philosophy. Bottura famously transformed stale bread into a silky, caramelized dessert now considered a contemporary masterpiece. He turned Parmigiano rinds into the now-legendary “Parmigiano acqua,” a deceptively simple infusion that produces astonishing depth. Chefs from New York to São Paulo imitate it today. Bottura’s work is built on a profound insight: flavor is not a luxury. Waste is. Look closely, and you’ll see the zero-waste gourmet movement is not a trend at all. It is a return to culinary science — to extraction, infusion, fermentation, and dehydration, the ancient technologies that sustained civilizations long before refrigeration and industrial processing arrived. Extraction calls for drawing intensity from bones, shells, peels, and pits. Infusion relies on oils, tannins, and aromatics slowly releasing into liquids. Fermentation transforms scraps into acids, fizz, and umami. Dehydration preserves while amplifying flavor. These techniques show up everywhere: French grandmothers simmering onion skins for broth, Korean halmeonis making kimchi brines from vegetable stubs, Japanese chefs shaving dried fish bones for dashi, Indian households sun-drying citrus peels for digestive powders. Today, chefs market these techniques as sustainability. Historically, they were simply good cooking. Home cooks are rediscovering what chefs never forgot. The rise of zero-waste gourmet cooking isn’t driven solely by climate consciousness, although that matters. It is driven by economic logic and flavor efficiency. Food prices are rising globally, consumers are cooking more at home, gourmet techniques have been democratized by social media, and people want healthier, more flavorful meals without expensive ingredients. Scraps offer all of this, at zero additional cost. A single Parmesan rind can elevate a simple broth into a restaurant-level experience. A corn cob can transform a summer soup into a velvety, Michelin-grade velouté. Mushroom stems, long ignored, can outperform truffle shavings in pure umami satisfaction. These are not compromises. They are enhancements. This is why the future of zero-waste cooking is not about guilt. It is about flavor. Scraps are not a moral choice; they are a flavor choice. They are not punishment; they are opportunity. They are not leftovers; they are leverage. What Bottura, Barber, and countless quiet geniuses in professional kitchens around the world have proven is simple: the world does not need more ingredients. It needs more imagination. And the most underutilized raw material in the global food system is sitting right in front of us — not in the gleaming produce aisles, but in the bowls and bins we’ve been taught to discard. Welcome to the flavor frontier. It’s time to cook the way chefs always have. The Zero-Waste Consumer: A New Demographic Emerges A new kind of consumer is reshaping the modern food economy — one who reads labels as closely as financial statements, who sees culinary creativity as a form of personal branding, and who treats kitchen scraps not as trash but as raw material. This demographic is young, eco-literate, digitally native, and increasingly influential. And their rise signals a profound shift in how value is constructed in the food ecosystem. What has changed is not just environmental awareness, but cultural perception. For decades, frugality was associated with necessity. Today, it has been elevated into a lifestyle choice — a fusion of economic rationality, culinary aspiration, and ethical coherence. Social media has acted as the accelerant: platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube have collapsed the distance between professional chefs and home cooks. A single “upcycle your scraps” video can accumulate millions of views overnight, reframing what once looked like thrift as artistry. Turning carrot tops into pesto or corn cobs into velouté isn’t just resourceful — it’s cool, performative, and narratively rich. It signals intelligence, sustainability, and competence all at once. Three underlying forces drive this demographic’s growth, though none operates in isolation. The first is economic pressure. In a world where grocery bills inch upward faster than wages, consumers have turned cost-efficiency into a form of empowerment. The ability to stretch ingredients without compromising quality feels less like compromise and more like strategic mastery. Saving money has become aspirational — a way to display control, creativity, and financial literacy. The second force is gourmet ambition. The internet has democratized access to culinary techniques once trapped behind the stainless-steel doors of elite restaurants. Video tutorials reveal how Michelin-level chefs coax extraordinary flavor from overlooked scraps. Suddenly, transforming stems, rinds, peels, or bones into gourmet dishes is not only possible but celebrated. This creates a cultural shift: waste reduction is no longer an act of deprivation, but a mark of sophistication. The zero-waste kitchen becomes a stage for ingenuity, where the cook becomes a kind of flavor alchemist. Scraps become a new frontier for experimentation, a way to express one’s palate, identity, and aesthetics. Finally, there is the ethical undertow. Food waste now appears not just financially reckless but morally outdated. With climate anxieties rising and documentaries illuminating the environmental cost of discarded produce, consumers increasingly view wastefulness as an ethical failure — a breach of personal responsibility. Using scraps allows them to uphold their values without sacrificing pleasure. It delivers what modern consumers want most: sustainability without pain, ethics without compromise, responsibility without austerity. Zero-waste cooking, in this sense, becomes a guilt-free path to indulgence. This shift has not gone unnoticed by the food industry. Retailers, always sensitive to emerging micro-cultures, are beginning to treat scraps as a product category rather than a liability. In upscale grocery chains, bundles of vegetable stems are marketed specifically for broths and pestos. Artisanal producers have introduced rind-based flavor kits that mirror chef techniques, turning what once sat in waste bins into premium SKUs. Upcycled sauces made from tomato skins or carrot pulp now occupy the same shelves as craft condiments. Even dehydrated citrus peel seasonings — once the domain of grandmother pantries — have been reborn as gourmet cocktail rimmers and dessert garnishes. What began in Michelin kitchens is quietly becoming a mainstream retail strategy. Scraps are crossing the chasm from necessity to desirability, from background noise to hero ingredient. And as consumers embrace the idea that flavor can come from anywhere — not just the glossy, camera-ready parts of produce — brands are discovering a rare convergence of profit, sustainability, and cultural momentum. In the evolution of food trends, few shifts are as structurally significant as this one. The zero-waste consumer represents not just a new market segment, but a new mindset — one in which creativity, economy, and ethics align so seamlessly that the boundaries between them dissolve. This demographic is not merely responding to a trend. They are building a new culinary culture, one rind, stem, cob, and peel at a time. A Future Where “Scrap” Becomes a Culinary Relic The global food system is undergoing profound reinvention. Climate volatility, soil degradation, supply chain disruptions, and unpredictable harvests are forcing consumers and companies to rethink resource efficiency. At the same time, diners demand deeper umami, brighter aromatics, layered textures, and compelling culinary narratives. Zero-waste cooking sits at the intersection of these pressures, where sustainability and flavor reinforce each other. “People are more mindful than ever about food waste — and for good reason. With global conversations around food disparity and real-time awareness of how much we throw away, there’s finally a collective shift happening. Add rising grocery costs to the mix, and home cooks are learning to stretch every ingredient to its fullest potential. Parmesan rinds, for example, are absolute magic. Drop them into soups or a simmering pot of tomato sauce and they melt their umami right into the dish. Onion skins, carrot peelings, herb stems, chicken bones — these so-called ‘discards’ make some of the most flavorful stocks you’ll ever taste. Then there are the everyday heroes: fried rice, omelets, casseroles — dishes purpose-built to transform scraps and leftovers into something comforting and complete. Look across the culinary world and you’ll see this philosophy deeply rooted in Korean, Japanese, and Chinese cooking especially. Nothing is wasted. Every trim has a purpose. Every scrap has a role. That mindset is as economical as it is delicious — a true chef’s way of respecting the ingredient.” -- Chef Katie Vine, the culinary mind behind Dinners Done Quick The concept of “waste” is losing relevance. Parmesan rinds are now marketed as concentrated umami cores. Corn cobs serve as natural broth starters, their starches adding sweetness and texture. Vegetable stems function as flavor anchors. Citrus peels provide aromatic lift and bitter-sweet complexity. Mushroom stems deliver earthy, savory intensity. What was once scrap is becoming a premium ingredient category, echoing the rise of cascara and whey — byproducts turned commodities. The shift is philosophical as much as commercial. Zero-waste cooking succeeds not through virtue but through flavor, control, and mastery. Using scraps is an act of culinary intelligence. Deeper broths, richer oils, and cleaner pantries make sustainability a byproduct of technique, not an obligation. When flavor leads, behavior change becomes seamless. As AI optimizes household patterns, fermentation expands possibilities, and upcycling scales industrially, the idea of a “scrap” may disappear. Every peel, stem, core, leaf, rind, and husk will hold deliberate culinary value. Future cookbooks will map potential, not waste. The kitchen, once one of the most wasteful spaces, is becoming a model of circular design. Ingredients destined for trash will drive new flavors, textures, and innovations. The question will no longer be how to use scraps, but what extraordinary flavors have been ignored, and what else are we still discarding? -- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3443/indias-first-geo-referenced-marine-fisheries-census-to-redefine-blue-economy-strategy-union-minister-george-kurian.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3443/indias-first-geo-referenced-marine-fisheries-census-to-redefine-blue-economy-strategy-union-minister-george-kurian.html Tue, 02 Dec 2025 15:41:21 +0530 In an exclusive Agrospectrum interview, George Kurian, Minister of State for Minority Affairs and Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying, Government of India, elaborated on the Marine Fisheries Census (MFC) 2025 as a historic shift from estimation-based planning to a new era of evidence-driven, precision governance. He emphasised that the Census—powered by VyAS-BHARAT and VyAS-SUTRA—creates a dynamic, multidimensional, and scientifically validated foundation that will reshape policy design, welfare delivery, sustainability planning, and global market competitiveness. Under the visionary leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the MFC 2025 becomes the central pillar of India’s marine-sector transformation, aligning governance with the long-term national aspiration of Viksit Bharat 2047.  George Kurian highlighted that the Ministry’s initiatives under the guidance of Rajiv Ranjan Singh, Union Cabinet Minister of Panchayati Raj and Minister of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India, are already delivering record levels of production and exports while ensuring that technology, sustainability, and inclusivity permeate every intervention. The Census’s unprecedented household-level granularity will enable targeted welfare distribution, fisherwomen-led entrepreneurship, and a scientific roadmap for deep-sea expansion, mariculture growth, and ecosystem-based fisheries management.  Ultimately, MFC 2025 equips India with the consolidated intelligence needed to emerge as a top-3 global seafood power, setting new international benchmarks in transparency, traceability, and responsible ocean stewardship. Edited excerpts: The MFC 2025 is described as a foundational dataset for Indian marine fisheries. How will this census reshape policy planning, coastal livelihood schemes and blue economy development over the next decade ? The MFC 2025 will fundamentally reshape planning by providing a cogent, granular database with a multidimensional focus on the sector for the first time. For Policy: The Census will provide us with real time data. We will have a precise, multi-dimensional understanding of the present condition—financial status, equipment ownership, and infrastructure status—of every single fishing family and village. This becomes the bedrock for rolling out schemes like Pradhan Mantri Matsya Yojana (PMMSY), allowing for highly focused and requirement-based allocation of resources. For Livelihoods: The Census provides a "ringside view" of skill levels within fisher families. This is critical. It allows us to strategically plan alternative livelihood support, such as diversification into deep-sea fishing or targeted development of mariculture avenues, based on the actual skills and capacity present in the community. For the Blue Economy: This database will serve as the scientific and spatial map we need for sustainable expansion. It identifies our present wherewithal, allowing us  to plan the exploration of untapped avenues in our Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) while simultaneously implementing sustainable, ecosystem-based management for our current fisheries. This is the first fully digital and geo-referenced Marine Fisheries Census. What new granularity and decision intelligence will the VYAS–BHARAT & VYAS–SUTRA systems unlock that earlier cycles could not ? The biggest strength of this Census is its digital and real-time nature, powered by the VyAS systems. The key innovation is "household-level granularity." Earlier cycles gave us broadly grouped factors or indicators, with less options for integration with similar databases and spatial assessment; MFC 2025 gives us a georeferenced, real-time, and verified picture of each household. VyAS-BHARAT is designed to capture the complete picture—the household's socio-economic status, craft ownership, and access to coastal infrastructure. This is not just data; it's a status appraisal of our entire coastline. VyAS-SUTRA, its complimentary app, is the quality control mechanism. It uses meta-information to ensure the data being populated is plausible, validated, and purified at the source. This combination unlocks real-time decision intelligence. We can see which specific "pockets" of fisher settlements have been historically left out and bring them into the fold. The digital tracking and validation system makes the data immediately usable and reliable for any analysis, from a district-level scheme to a national policy furthering Hon’ble PM Shri Narendra Modi Ji’s vision of leveraging data, digitalisation, and technology to design better policies and ensure transparent, evidence-based governance. How will census insights directly support welfare architecture — including insurance coverage, PMMSY benefit targeting, safety-at-sea systems, housing, and fisherwomen entrepreneurship ? The MFC 2025 is the master database for inclusive delivery of welfare schemes. Targeting Benefits: For PMMSY, housing schemes, or financial aid, the Census provides the precise list of beneficiaries. We will know exactly who owns what, what their financial condition is, and where they live. Inclusivity: The Census is designed to include settlements that may not have been covered yet. This exhaustive mapping ensures that welfare benefits can reach all genuine marine fishers. Fisherwomen Entrepreneurship: By cataloguing the specific skills available in households, we can design pointed schemes to support fisherwomen in alternative livelihoods like mariculture or value-addition, moving them from labourers to entrepreneurs. The exclusive details being collected of the Self-Help Groups active in the fishing villages using VyAS-BHARAT will aid in the expansion of women centric entrepreneurship. Insurance & Safety: By creating a detailed, validated picture of all crafts and fishing assets, we can establish a clear baseline for universal insurance coverage and ensure targeted deployment of safety-at-sea systems. How will MFC 2025 enhance India’s competitiveness in EU, US & Japan seafood markets ? International markets like the EU, US, and Japan demand proof of sustainability and traceability. The MFC 2025 provides the foundation for meeting these expectations. This Census is the foundational layer for a sustainable ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) plan. It gives us a complete, scientifically-consolidated assessment of our fleet's health and capacity. When we can speak loudly in the global arena with robust, homogenous national data, we demonstrate that our fisheries are managed responsibly. This Census is the first step in building a national traceability system—linking crafts, households, and landing centres. This data becomes the verifiable backbone that satisfies international queries and solidifies India's position as a responsible, high-quality seafood supplier. How does MFC 2025 align with India’s vision to emerge as a Top-3 global seafood power — both in sustainable capture fisheries and high-value, value-added exports ? Our vision to make India a top-3 global seafood power rests on two pillars: sustainable capture and high-value diversification. The MFC 2025 is the strategic tool for both. Sustainable Capture & Expansion: The Census assesses the professional fitness of our fleets. It provides the data needed to manage our existing resources sustainably while simultaneously identifying the capacity and requirements for diversification into deep-sea fishing and harnessing the full potential of our EEZ. High-Value Diversification: The future lies in high-value products. The Census identifies the skills and resources available for aquaculture and mariculture, enabling us to strategically pivot and scale up these high-value sectors. In short, the MFC 2025 is the consolidated, scientific roadmap that charts our path. It identifies our strengths, highlights key areas for improvement, and illuminates the precise opportunities we must seize to achieve our national goal. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, India is setting new global standards in data-driven governance and inclusive growth through the Marine Fisheries Census 2025. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3442/sacha-hoffmann-santelices-reveals-engineering-behind-komets-irrigation-edge.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3442/sacha-hoffmann-santelices-reveals-engineering-behind-komets-irrigation-edge.html Mon, 01 Dec 2025 12:22:47 +0530 In this exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Sacha Hoffmann Santelices, Managing Director, Komet Irrigation, explains how the company rebuilt its manufacturing philosophy by benchmarking against automotive plants rather than agricultural peers. He outlines how precision engineering, tighter tolerances, and operator-led quality have become strategic differentiators that translate directly into field performance and farmer trust. Sacha highlights Komet’s tightly integrated feedback loops across continents, which allow rapid redesigns and testing updates based on real-world agronomic challenges. He also details how lean culture, digitalized flow systems, and carefully balanced automation help the company maintain industry-leading delivery despite global volatility. Looking ahead to Irrigation 2030, Hoffmann describes investments in advanced materials, digital twins, and cutting-edge laboratories that will anchor the next decade of hydraulic innovation. Raising the Bar: From Irrigation to Industry Leading Manufacturing Komet’s Lienz facility has been compared to automotive plants. What cultural, process, and technology shifts have allowed you to build a factory that outperforms the typical agricultural benchmark ? We began with a cultural reset. Instead of comparing ourselves to other agricultural manufacturers, we benchmarked against the best automotive plants. This changed how we design processes, how we hire, and how we use technology. We invested heavily in process engineering, standardization, and eliminating root causes, not symptoms. Today, repeatability, traceability, and defect-prevention are built into every workflow. That is why our factory performs far above typical agri-equipment standards. Precision as Strategy, Not Just Manufacturing Discipline Your components have tolerances much tighter than industry norms. How has precision become a strategic advantage in the field ? Precision is not just a technical choice; it is a strategic differentiator. Tighter tolerances deliver more consistent water distribution, less variability across environments, and better agronomic reliability. Farmers see this immediately in uniformity and yield. Precision becomes trust, and trust becomes market share. By designing every part to tighter tolerances than the industry expects, we turn manufacturing accuracy into better field performance. Quality at the Source: Redesigning the Role of Operators You say quality must be “produced,” not “controlled.” How do you ensure operators act as problem-solvers rather than machine operators waiting for inspection ? We shifted the operator’s role from a “machine runner” to a “process owner,” anchored on three reinforcing pillars. First, our systems are designed to make errors almost impossible—through poka-yoke mechanisms, real-time SPC dashboards, and standardized work that makes any deviation immediately visible. Second, we hire for problem-solving ability and cross-functional flexibility rather than narrow machine skills, ensuring operators can manage multiple tasks and think beyond their stations. Third, our incentives reward quality and ownership instead of sheer output volume, recognizing those who take responsibility and actively contribute to improvements. This transformation is sustained through continuous training: once operators truly understand that they produce quality rather than merely inspect it, the entire quality curve shifts upstream. Closing the Loop: Farmer Feedback Driving Factory Decisions How does feedback from growers in very different regions influence product design or manufacturing ? We have structured feedback channels across Asia, Latin America, Africa, and the US. This information is reviewed weekly and directly informs our design and production decisions. For example, when farmers in drought-prone areas report behaviour at extremely low pressure, we adjust our testing protocols and may even redesign geometry or materials. The loop from field to factory is short, and agility is one of our biggest strengths. Agility Under Volatility: Supply Chain and Flow Redesign How do you maintain leading on-time delivery despite volatile demand, raw-material swings, and logistics disruptions ? We moved from a “batch and push” model to a flow-driven, demand-synchronized system. We also built dual sourcing for critical components to reduce risk. On the shop floor, we redesigned lines into flexible U-Lines, like Toyota’s approach, so teams can scale up or down quickly while keeping flow stable. At the same time, we accelerated production digitalization, giving us real-time visibility of lead times and faster decision-making. These structural changes allow us to keep industry-leading delivery performance even in unstable market conditions. Lean as a Cultural Engine, not a Toolkit What has been the hardest lean discipline to embed, and how do you maintain weekly improvement momentum ? The hardest discipline is consistency, following standards every day, on every shift. Tools are simple; culture is not. We built a strong shop-floor management system with daily and weekly routines at all leadership levels. Meetings follow a clear, standard format so communication is aligned and transparent. Problems are solved quickly, directly at the source. Our Komet Lean House provides a long-term roadmap with principles, behaviour, and five-year milestones. It keeps our transformation structured and focused. Lean is not a toolkit for us; it is how we think and operate. Innovating Without Over-Automating How do you balance automation with human craftsmanship when small errors can have large field consequences ? We automate where it adds robustness, not where it replaces craftsmanship. For irrigation components, a sub-millimeter misalignment can change the entire hydraulic profile, so we focus on automation that eliminates variability but keep human expertise where judgment is critical. At the same time, automation plays an important ergonomic role: it removes repetitive, physically demanding tasks and allows our people to work in safer, more sustainable conditions. The balance is intentional, automation for stability and ergonomics, skilled people for precision and sensitivity. Preparing for Irrigation 2030: The Next Capability Leap What new competencies are you developing to stay ahead of future irrigation needs ? We are building capabilities far beyond traditional manufacturing: advanced materials science, integrated testing environments, digital twins, and a workforce with stronger analytical and polyvalent skills. A major step is our new laboratory building in Brazil, one of the most advanced in the irrigation industry. It allows high-resolution testing, simulation of extreme conditions, and faster development cycles. Insights from the lab flow directly into product design, material choices, and manufacturing. This keeps us ahead of agronomic and hydraulic challenges and prepares us for the needs of 2030 and beyond. Our goal is clear: build today the capabilities that will define the next decade of irrigation performance. ---- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3428/can-africa-grow-what-it-eats-irris-dr-ismail-maps-new-blueprint-for-rice-self-sufficiency.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3428/can-africa-grow-what-it-eats-irris-dr-ismail-maps-new-blueprint-for-rice-self-sufficiency.html Thu, 27 Nov 2025 18:04:57 +0530 In an exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Dr. Ismail Abdelbagi, Principal Scientist and Regional Representative for Africa at International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) lays out a candid assessment of why Africa still imports $8–9 billion of rice annually despite holding the world’s largest reserve of untapped arable land. He argues that the continent’s core bottlenecks—underfunded seed systems, broken value chains, low government investment, and dominance of rainfed, low-productivity systems—must be fixed before any talk of self-sufficiency becomes realistic. Breakthroughs in drought, flood, salinity, and heat-tolerant varieties are finally progressing, but require African-specific breeding pipelines, stronger national programs, and serious funding to reach scale. With consumers shifting toward higher-quality, fortified and convenience rice, Dr. Ismail points to milling modernization, youth-led mechanisation services, and private-sector seed systems as Africa’s next billion-dollar opportunities. Looking ahead to 2035, he says Africa can be food-sovereign and even a net exporter—but only if political stability, modernized policies, and investment-ready ecosystems align to unlock the continent’s true rice potential. Africa’s rice imports have crossed $8–9 billion annually, despite strong policy rhetoric on self-sufficiency. Which structural weaknesses—seed systems, milling capacity, land productivity, or trade dependence—are most urgent to fix, and what would be the fastest win ? Africa has the potential to feed itself and even contribute substantially to global food production and security. The continent holds about 60 to 65 per cent of the global arable lands that has not yet been exploited, with diverse climates suitable for various crops. These vastly underutilized resources position the continent as a future safety valve for global food security. Several general issues are contributing to the inadequate use of these resources such as limited investment in infrastructure including irrigation, modern production and postharvest technologies and marketing platforms.   Several challenges need to be addressed to unlock this potential for the continent to effectively contribute to local and global food security. Governments’ investment in agriculture is still low compared with countries in Asia, mostly less than 1 per cent of their respective GDPs. This is despite the commitment to allocate at least 10 per cent of national GDP to agriculture and rural development, based on Maputo Declaration endorsed by all states in July 2003. Committing to invest in agriculture, including production, postharvest and marketing infrastructure, enabling policy frameworks, providing training and capacity building, and minimizing risks especially for smallholder communities will boost productivity and address food, nutrition and income security, and ensure food sovereignty to avoid dependence on imports in the increasingly becoming less reliable international food market trade. Rice lands and water resources are abundant in Africa, with an estimate of over 300 million ha suitable for rice production, with only about 12 per cent of it currently in use, with low productivity averaging less than half of the world mean production. This is because of dominance of traditional farming approaches, especially in rainfed farming systems that constitutes about 80 per cent of the current rice production areas. Implementing proper policy frameworks that support rapid growth of the rice sector, including adoption of new varieties and modern production practices such as mechanization, effective seed production and delivery systems, access to markets for smallholder farmers (SHFs) to vend their produce at prices that ensures sufficient profits and sustained income, and access to agrochemicals including fertilizers at affordable prices and in time. For this to be realized, rice-based value chains need considerable amendments to reduce intermediaries and provide access of farmers to competitive markets for better choices of prices and to motivate them to produce more. Consolidation of SHF into large fields managed through farmers’ cooperatives and communities will also facilitate implementation of efficient, scale-appropriate technologies to replace the current mostly manual and inefficient production methods being used by smallholders.    Engaging the private sector and other investors is critical for the success of rice-based systems in Africa for effective commercialization of new varieties, development of sustained seed systems and for market access. Intergovernmental arrangements and guidelines are mostly in place but largely not implemented, these agreements can help reduce dependence on import through regional and continental food security and sovereignty. Africa also deserve stronger and binding trade agreements independent of global food and trade instability, although this trade dependence is in part, a result of low production and poor quality of the produce, to meet local requirements. This is further aggravated by political instability and security leading to conflicting investment priorities. Climate shocks are hitting rice hardest in rainfed lowlands, where 80 per cent of Africa’s farmers operate. How close are we to a breakthrough in drought- and heat-resilient varieties that can stabilize yields without costly irrigation infrastructure ? Rainfed rice areas in Africa has not been given sufficient attention for rice production, and farmers still use traditional tools and technologies. This is contrary to the progress made in Asia, where most rainfed areas has been transformed into productive lands, with high and mostly stable yields. The transformation in Asia became feasible after the introduction of varieties that tolerate drought, floods and salt stress, both in coastal and inland areas. This is also coupled with modern production technologies, including water management, proper use of fertilizers, mechanized farming and other suitable cultural practices, with considerable success in increasing and sustaining productivity and income of SHFs in affected areas. Sub-Saharan Africa benefitted little from the stress tolerant varieties developed for South and Southeast Asia, and obviously more efforts need to be devoted to developing and delivering such varieties for Africa to help cope with the vastly worsening climate change adversities. This is only possible through dedicated and well-funded projects to ensure faster progress and impact, especially with the recent scientific developments and use of modern breeding strategies, including molecular tools for genotyping coupled with efficient phenotyping approaches using speed breeding facilities. IRRI started using these technologies in its centralized breeding facilities in Philippines and India, with the products targeting African environment being tested locally in African countries. We are expecting some good progress in the coming few years if resources permit.    IRRI’s Sub1 and salinity-tolerant varieties changed the game in Asia. What are the next frontier traits that Africa needs—especially along the Sahelian dry corridor and coastal deltas facing salinization from sea-level rise? Rice farmers in Africa are facing numerous challenges, including the same issues in Asia – drought, floods and excess salts in soil and water. Besides, other abiotic stresses like iron toxicity in lowlands and nutrient deficiencies due to soil conditions, like phosphorus and zinc deficiencies in uplands, are also serious in some areas. The soils are degraded and deficient in minerals and organic carbon due to continued mining with little replacement. Moreover, the unusual variation in temperatures being experienced, is also leading to considerable reduction in yields, with higher temperatures in some lowland areas and chilling temperatures in highlands. The dominant stains of common rice diseases are sometimes different from those dominating in Asia, making breeding stress tolerant varieties even more challenging.  For these reasons, the stress tolerant varieties released in Asia that made considerable contributions in increasing and sustaining productivity in some countries, like drought, flood and salt tolerant varieties, mostly do not work in Africa, due to variation in other factors, especially diseases and pests and soil conditions. This necessitates transfer of tolerance traits and genes into genetic backgrounds suitable for Africa, and significant efforts and resources need to be devoted to developing such varieties. Due to these and other factors, particularly lack of resources and breeding infrastructure for national breeding programs, our work on developing stress tolerant varieties for Africa has been slow.  The genetic factors responsible for tolerance of drought, floods, salinity and their combinations need to be transferred into varieties suitable for African climate conditions while meeting the consumer and local market requirements and preferences, before they can successfully be commercialized and adopted. This work has been ongoing with some success in releasing few flood-tolerant varieties (with SUB1 gene) in Nigeria and Madagascar, and salt tolerant varieties in Kenya and Tanzania. Some varieties with partial tolerance to drought were released in several countries across SSA. Work is also ongoing to develop varieties that tolerate temperature extremes, where heat waves are becoming common during the season in lowlands and low temperatures in highlands. Ideally, future varieties for Africa should combine tolerance of major abiotic stresses dominating in a particular target region, together with resistance to common diseases. Today’s African consumer is shifting from low-cost staples to quality, fortified, and convenience-driven rice. What innovations in processing, branding, and nutrition could unlock the next billion-dollar opportunity for domestic producers ? Rice is becoming the cereal food of choice in SSA, over the traditional coarse grains like sorghum, millets and teff, because of its palatability, ease of preparation and storage. This shift is driven by several demographic changes, including rapid population growth, with currently over 60 per cent of the population being young, below 25 yrs of age, with shifts in food preferences and conveniences. There is also an exodus of youth to urban areas, seeking better living conditions and opportunities, leaving older generations to deal with farming. This situation can be effectively reversed by providing attractive entrepreneurships through rice farming, such as service provision, especially mechanization, transport and storage, use of IT tools and Apps, seed production and marketing, etc., to make farming more attractive for younger generations. Enabling and supporting such enterprises for young men and women will significantly help in improving productivity and reducing cost of production, while providing employment opportunities for younger generations to stay on farms, reducing pressure on already struggling cities. Similarly, this is opening opportunities for investors and private sector to engage in support provision and even commercial production and marketing. Apparently, all steps along the value chain provide an investment opportunity in most countries. Rice produced locally is not yet competitive with imported rice in most countries, and that is because of many factors, including use of old varieties, poor seed systems to deliver new, improved and high-quality products, poor post-harvest and storage management. Modernizing rice production, including use of quality seeds and sufficient agrochemicals, as well as upgrading the whole value chain, especially postharvest (drying, cleaning, milling, packaging, storage, transport and marketing) will go a long way to make locally produced rice comparable with imported rice, which consumers prefer, especially in urban areas. Subsequently, this will provide good opportunities for investments in Africa. India, for example, could play major roles through bilateral engagements like the existing lines of credit for some countries and through South-South Cooperation and trade agreements. SSA countries can learn a lot from India, through its impressively short journey from being a net importer of rice to the largest exporter in the world within couple of decades. This also provide lots of opportunities for private sector to invest in these value chains, particularly commercial seed production, mechanization and all aspects of post-harvest management. SSA also need to build abilities and investments to adopt climate friendly operations with the expansion of rice industry, and to avoid the issues being experienced in major rice producing countries. The most obvious is the straw and husks burning under intensive rice production systems, involving 2-3 seasons per year, leaving little time to deal with solid wastes. Value addition and processing of these solid wastes can generate more income, e.g. biochar to enrich soil carbon, use in cement industry, mushroom farming, and processed fodder for livestock. Industries involving various products and value addition using rice can also help generate opportunities for commerce and for income. Fragmented national markets raise cost across the value chain. With AfCFTA slowly accelerating, which cross-border rice corridors (e.g., Senegal–Mali, Nigeria–Niger) could emerge as competitive agro-industrial hubs by 2035 ? Most of the intraregional trade in rice and other food commodities in SSA are informal and not well organized to reach their conceivable targets, leading to such fragmented and broken value chains and markets. However, if well-structured and regulated, can play major roles in reducing transaction costs, especially the cost of transport, and could help in resolving issues associated with other non-tariff barriers to encourage and support investments. Several countries in SSA succeeded in substantially increasing their annual rice production and some of them started trading with their neighboring countries. These countries include Tanzania, Madagascar, Nigeria, Mali, Guinea, Sierra Leone, and Ivory Coast. These countries are also exporting rice to their neighboring countries through mostly informal means. Countries that already achieved self-sufficiency, like Tanzania will likely contribute substantially to its neighbors like Kenya and Uganda. If AI-based advisories, digital extension, and climate risk insurance can reduce production uncertainty, what would it take to mainstream data-led farming among smallholders—technology subsidies, telco partnerships, or new farmer-business models ? AI-based advisories, extension apps and climate risk insurance models are important tools that can help speed generation of relevant information, reaching to extension personnel and farmers and minimizing farmers risks by providing insurance against disastrous incidents. AI proved to be transformative in making difficult technologies accessible and convenient and is becoming increasingly useful in agriculture and environment research. Yet its fast and predictive power raises concerns over the likely risks of its use to benefit SHFs, despite its power to speed generating scientific knowledge for the public.   AI already proved its effectiveness in managing commercial farms in developed countries, and similarly could be adapted to farmers needs in SSA, to support decision making based on legacy data, which will considerably reduce investments and time to come up with bundles of interventions fitting specific local contexts, including forecast of catastrophic incidences, like droughts and floods, disease and pests outbreaks that are becoming more frequent with climate change progression. Climate risk insurance is also being accessed by farmers in Asia. Both AI and climate insurance has not been implemented to any scale in SSA to benefit SHFs, providing good business opportunities and new models for farming and food production. However, digital tools in the form of Apps provided through smart phones are being used by extension personnel and even farmers for training and access to information, including input and output market intelligence, nutrient and water management and for managing and forecasting yields, disease incidences etc.; and are likely to be mainstreamed faster than other digital farming technologies in SSA. The use of these tools, however, need to be carefully assessed and regulated to avoid any risks to farmers due to lack of awareness and capacity or due to risks associated with the technology. This is mainly because SHFs have very little resources to avert any incurred risks caused by erroneous or biased data used to generate such models. There are several ethical risks associated with these data-led tools, especially with AI, which has not been rigorously tested and regulated in Africa, including risks associated with data accuracy, availability and privacy, potential loss of jobs and displacement, biased access to information leading to unequal benefits, “digital divide” based on accessibility, etc. Strict ethical frameworks and transparency need to be in place to protect SHFs and reduce their vulnerability. Similarly, crop insurance requires strict guidelines and assessment to ensure accuracy of information and credibility of claims, which in most cases will be outside SHF‘s capacity. Government-led programs equipped with proper monitoring and data collection is necessary for the success of these advisory and support tools, for them to be successfully deployed in Africa, to mainstream data-led farming.  Africa also lacks an effective geospatial system for instantaneous generation of information on potential climate-related disasters, an area that will require infrastructure investment and training. This is critical to provide both farmers and governments with early warnings and to guide decisions that help mitigate any negative consequences. Successful use of these ventures will also require substantial investments in infrastructure and support services, which opens considerable opportunities for investors. Looking ahead to 2035: what does a climate-secure and investment-ready African rice ecosystem look like—and what is the single hardest political or economic barrier standing in its way ? Provided resources and stability within the coming ten years, I expect several countries in Africa to accomplish food self-sufficiency, and some become net exporters of various food staples, including rice. This will likely lead to continental food sovereignty and less dependence on the currently fragile international trade markets, especially exposure to price shocks that become inevitably frequent due to several triggers such as weather calamities, conflicts and political unrests, leading to panic hoarding in some cases. I believe reaching self-sufficiency will depend on how fast countries and regions make progress in critical areas that are currently holding them back, including the following: Significant and consistent government’s investment in food production and related infrastructure for processing, storage and transport. This should include provision of insurance and subsidy options to derisk and protect smallholder farmers, and to provide minimum farmgate prices to sustain farmers’ income and profit and keep them in the market. Fixing and strengthening rice value chains: Currently SHFs in Africa are getting less than half of the proceeds their counterparts are getting in Asia. This is mainly because the existing value chains are broken, mostly unregulated and dominated by intermediaries. Political stability is critical for sound progress and development of the rice agri-food systems. Fortunately, most countries are moving in that direction. This will encourage investors to take critical roles in financing to revolutionize the food value chains, including rice where relatively little is available in international trade market, and with increasing global demands.   Adjusting policies and guidelines to match those in other successful countries like India, to streamline the development and deployment of innovations faster. Current policies in most countries are outdated and are hindering progress, especially those related to release and scaling of new varieties, delivery systems for quality inputs and outputs, and for engaging private sector and investors to provide needed capital and capacity. This is probably the hardest political and economic barrier standing in the way of SSA to be investment ready and to assume its proper role as global food provider. Some countries are already making strides in this direction. Implementation of national and regional strategies that support growth of the rice sector: All major rice producing countries and few regional economic communities in SSA developed their national and regional rice development strategies that detailed the way to achieve their intended targets by 2030, these strategies are yet to be effectively implemented. The regional Economic Communities (RECs: EAC, ECOWAS, IGAD, COMESA, SADC) and the Associated Regional Agricultural Research Networks (e.g. CORAF, ASARECA, CCARDESA) also developed policies that assure and regulate collaboration across borders of neighboring countries, within regions and at the continental scales to allow free adoption of varieties released in a particular country, free cross-border movement of seeds, grains, agrochemicals and knowledge, with no non-tariff barriers. Engaging with countries in Asia through South-South Collaboration (SSC) is also being discussed to enhance learning and exchange, and to facilitate investments for faster growth. An example in this direction is the “Seed Without Borders (SWB) agreement facilitated by IRRI. Most countries in Africa already set policies and guidelines that encourages investments in agriculture and food production, others are on the way. There are dire needs for these investments, especially in upgrading infrastructure, facilitating aggregation of SHFs into commercial entities, provision of modern technologies particularly machinery, agrochemicals and marketing platforms --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3426/future-of-agri-finance-runs-on-mapmycrop-swapnil-jadhav-on-maas-revolution.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3426/future-of-agri-finance-runs-on-mapmycrop-swapnil-jadhav-on-maas-revolution.html Wed, 26 Nov 2025 12:03:09 +0530 In this exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Swapnil Jadhav, Founder & CEO of MapMyCrop, outlines how Monitoring-as-a-Service (MaaS) is redefining agricultural intelligence by shifting the sector from software-based tools to verified, outcome-driven visibility. He explains how MapMyCrop’s 6.2-million farmer validation network, multi-country crop intelligence, and proprietary AI models are solving agriculture’s long-standing “last-mile truth” problem at scale. Jadhav highlights how the company is emerging as the infrastructure backbone for data-driven agri-credit, parametric insurance, and climate-risk modelling as global finance moves toward intelligence-based lending. Swapnil also details how MaaS is becoming central to India’s state-level policy decisions—optimising water, subsidies, and climate governance—while delivering dramatic on-ground impact, such as 60 per cent input savings and 50 per cent quality gains for orange growers. Looking ahead, he positions MapMyCrop as the regulated verification layer of the future, enabling every farm to be visible, every risk quantifiable, and every sustainability claim credible by 2030. MaaS as a Market Redefinition You call MapMyCrop the world’s first Monitoring-as-a-Service platform. What makes MaaS a true category-creation model rather than a rebranded form of agri-tech SaaS ? Monitoring as a service isn't a rebrand—it's a fundamental shift in how agricultural intelligence is delivered. Traditional agri-tech SaaS used to provide software licenses but we at MapMyCrop provide verified, actionable insights as an on-demand service. What makes this category-defining is our Model-as-a-Service architecture: we deploy satellite imagery, weather analytics, and AI-driven crop models continuously across geographies, delivering real-time monitoring without requiring farmers or enterprises to own infrastructure, manage platforms, or interpret raw data. The customers utilize MapMyCrop’s platform for outcomes—verified crop health, yield forecasts, risk alerts—not for software they need to operationalize themselves. That's the core differentiator, we've industrialized agricultural visibility. The Economics of Visibility Satellite intelligence, IoT, and field-level verification are capital intensive. What is the core lever that makes MaaS financially scalable—data monetisation, automation, or enterprise partnerships? Our financial scalability relies on automation and our farmer validation network—not IoT or ground sensors, which are prohibitively expensive at scale. We leverage freely available satellite data and open weather sources, then apply our proprietary AI models to generate insights. The critical lever is our 6.2 million farmer network, which provides ground-truth validation at near-zero marginal cost. This creates a self-reinforcing loop, with more farmers means better model accuracy and then it leads to higher enterprise value which gives us more revenue per insight delivered. We're not just monetizing data but monetizing validated intelligence. Enterprise partnerships with insurers, banks, FMCGs, and governments—provide recurring revenue because they're buying risk reduction and decision confidence, not dashboards. Cracking the Ground-Truthing Barrier Agriculture’s biggest bottleneck is not data scarcity but data validation. How does Map My Crop solve the “last-mile truth” problem that has historically limited insurers, banks, and food companies from making accurate, real-time decisions? You've identified agriculture's Achilles heel. Satellite data is abundant; trust is scarce. MapMyCrop solves the "last-mile truth" problem through our distributed farmer validation network spanning 6.2 million farmers across diverse geographies and partner ecosystems. These farmers act as our ground sensors validating crop stages, stress events, actual yields feeding real-world observations back into our AI models. This isn't crowdsourcing; it's structured validation infrastructure. Combined with our multi-country deployment, we've built longitudinal datasets that capture how crops actually behave across microclimates, soil types, and farming practices, not how models predict they should behave.For insurers, banks, and food companies, this means they can finally underwrite, lend, and procure based on verified field reality, not proxy indicators or farmer declarations. That's the paradigm shift. Transforming Agri-Credit and Insurance As agri-finance shifts from collateral-based lending to data-based underwriting, how is Map My Crop positioning itself as the infrastructure layer for credit scoring, parametric insurance, and climate-risk modelling ? We're positioning MapMyCrop as the rails for data-driven agri-finance, the infrastructure layer that enables lenders and insurers to move from collateral-based to intelligence-based decision-making. Our platform delivers:Our platform supplies granular credit-scoring inputs by analysing farm-level crop health trajectories, input application patterns, and yield-probability curves. It also strengthens parametric insurance design through verified stress-event data—such as drought, excess rainfall, or pest pressure—captured with precise timestamps and geo-tagged evidence. In addition, we deliver forward-looking climate-risk modeling that integrates evolving weather patterns, soil-moisture trends, and crop-vulnerability indices to help institutions anticipate and manage future exposure.Financial institutions don't need to become agronomy experts; they plug into our MaaS layer and receive decision-ready intelligence. As agriculture financing scales to meet the $500B+ credit gap globally, verified monitoring infrastructure isn't optional—it's foundational. Climate, Carbon, and Compliance With Scope 3 emissions reporting and regenerative agriculture commitments rising globally, how central is carbon MRV and climate monitoring to your product roadmap? Do you foresee MaaS becoming mandatory for global agricultural supply chains? Carbon MRV and climate monitoring are central to our roadmap—not as a feature, but as a core product vertical. With Scope 3 reporting mandates tightening and regenerative agriculture commitments accelerating, food companies and agri-processors need verifiable evidence of on-farm carbon sequestration, sustainable practices, and emissions reductions. Our satellite + AI + farmer validation architecture is purpose-built for this: we can monitor practice adoption, quantify biomass changes, and validate interventions at scale without deploying expensive IoT infrastructure. Do I foresee MaaS becoming mandatory? Yes. Within 5 years, major agricultural supply chains will require continuous monitoring and third-party verification of sustainability claims. MapMyCrop is building that verification backbone today. The companies that don't adopt this infrastructure will face compliance risk, supply chain opacity, and premium loss in ESG-conscious markets. Defensibility in a Crowded Tech Landscape With satellite analytics, crop models, and AI becoming increasingly commoditized, what is Map My Crop’s enduring moat—proprietary datasets, longitudinal crop intelligence, integrated advisory, or ecosystem lock-in ? Our moat is longitudinal, validated crop intelligence across diverse agroecologies—and the farmer + partner ecosystem that continuously strengthens it. Satellite access is commoditized. AI models can be replicated. What cannot be easily replicated is: We bring over six years of ground-validated crop performance data spanning multiple crops, geographies, and climate conditions, backed by a 6.2-million-farmer validation network that provides continuous real-time ground truth. This is reinforced by multi-country operational experience—whether it’s understanding how sugarcane behaves differently in Tamil Nadu compared to Uttar Pradesh, or how the economics of orange cultivation diverge between Nagpur and Madhya Pradesh. Added to this is a network of embedded partnerships with state governments, input companies, and financial institutions, creating strong switching costs and making our ecosystem uniquely resilient and hard to replicate. Our defensibility isn't technological—it's systemic. We've built agricultural intelligence infrastructure that gets smarter with every season and every farmer interaction. Competitors can launch satellite analytics; they can't replicate the depth and breadth of our validated knowledge graph. Incorporating the India Success Stories Roorkee Pilot: From Weather Validation to Policy IntelligenceYour Roorkee deployment helped the Uttarakhand government validate weather data and evaluate evapotranspiration and irrigation models. How do you convert such state-level pilots into long-term, scalable policy intelligence platforms across India? The Uttarakhand government engagement demonstrated that accurate, localized intelligence changes policy decisions. By validating weather data and evaluating ET/irrigation models, we helped them move from assumptions to evidence-based resource planning. Converting pilots into long-term platforms requires demonstrating fiscal and governance impact: water savings, subsidy optimization, crop insurance loss reduction. We're now positioned to scale this across Indian states by: We are focused on standardizing our policy intelligence modules—spanning water management, crop diversification, and input subsidy targeting—so they can be seamlessly deployed across diverse agro-climatic contexts. At the same time, we are integrating these modules with the existing workflows of state agricultural departments to ensure smooth adoption and minimal bureaucratic friction. Ultimately, the goal is to demonstrate clear return on investment through pilot results, showcasing improved policy outcomes, reduced wastage, and measurable gains in farmer welfare. State governments are increasingly data-hungry. We're building the agricultural monitoring infrastructure they need for 21st-century governance. Nagpur & MP Oranges: 60 per cent Input Savings, 50 per cent Quality Gains You helped orange growers reduce input costs by 60 per cent and improve fruit quality by 50 per cent.What exactly were the agronomic interventions and digital workflows behind this transformation—and can this model be replicated across India’s horticulture belts at scale? We used satellite and AI-based monitoring to detect crop stress—whether from water, nutrient, or pest issues—well before any visible symptoms appeared. Based on these early signals, we delivered timely and highly specific advisories through our farmer network and partners, prescribing exactly what intervention was needed, when to apply it, and where. This was reinforced by continuous feedback loops on ground performance, allowing us to validate what worked and refine our recommendations on a weekly basis. The result: farmers stopped blanket-spraying and over-fertilizing. They applied inputs precisely when crops needed them, reducing waste dramatically while improving fruit size, color, and brix levels.This model is scalable and replicable because it's not dependent on expensive infrastructure—it's driven by intelligence delivery. We're now deploying similar approaches across pomegranate belts in Maharashtra, mango regions in AP, and banana clusters in Tamil Nadu. India's horticulture sector is $80B+; precision agronomy at MaaS scale can transform its economics. Sugarcane Across Baramati, UP, MP & Tamil Nadu: AI Across Agro-Climates Sugarcane is grown in dramatically different soil, water, and climatic conditions across these states.What did your AI-powered agronomy engine learn from deploying across such diversity, and how does that knowledge strengthen your national and global product strategy? Deploying across such diverse sugarcane regions taught our AI engine something invaluable: crop performance is hyperlocal, but patterns are learnable. We discovered: Water stress manifests very differently across India’s agro-ecologies—Tamil Nadu’s red soils, for instance, face rapid moisture loss and demand tighter irrigation cycles, whereas Uttar Pradesh’s deep alluvial plains retain water longer but are prone to seasonal saturation. Pest pressure, too, follows distinct regional rhythms, with infestation cycles often varying by four to six weeks between zones due to shifts in temperature, humidity, and cropping intensity. Even harvesting windows are no longer dictated by crop age alone; they are increasingly shaped by hyper-local microclimatic cues that determine sugar accumulation, moisture levels, and overall crop quality.This agroecological diversity strengthened our models exponentially. Our AI doesn't just predict sugarcane yields; it understands which interventions work where and why. This cross-geography learning is now our strategic asset—when we enter new crops or new countries, we're not starting from scratch. We're applying battle-tested intelligence frameworks that adapt to local conditions quickly. The 2030 Bet If you had to define Map My Crop in a single sentence in 2030, what would it be? And what bold strategic bet are you making today that the industry still misunderstands or undervalues? If I had to define Map My Crop in 2030 in one sentence: "Map My Crop is the global infrastructure for verified agricultural intelligence—the layer that makes every farm visible, every risk quantifiable, and every sustainability claim credible." The bold bet we're making today that the industry undervalues: That agricultural monitoring will become regulated infrastructure, like financial audits or food safety inspections. Governments, financial institutions, and supply chains will mandate continuous, third-party-verified crop and land-use monitoring within this decade. We're not building a product; we're building the rails that the future agricultural economy will run on. The industry still thinks this is a "nice-to-have" analytics tool. We know it's tomorrow's compliance requirement and competitive necessity. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3414/inside-saf-ambition-reality-gap-aethers-alyssa-norris-on-tech-feedstocks-and-capital-needed-for-real-scale.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3414/inside-saf-ambition-reality-gap-aethers-alyssa-norris-on-tech-feedstocks-and-capital-needed-for-real-scale.html Thu, 20 Nov 2025 12:15:57 +0530 In this exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Alyssa Norris, Director of Sustainability at Aether Fuels, dissects the widening ambition–reality gap in the U.S. SAF Grand Challenge, noting that next-generation pathways beyond HEFA — including Aether’s own Aurora technology — will determine whether the 2030 target can still be met. She argues that the real feedstock battleground is shifting toward waste-carbon streams and electrofuels, where sustainability hinges on rigorous chain-of-custody systems that avoid land-use conflict entirely. Alyssa highlights how airlines are experimenting with new financial instruments, venture funds, and consumer-facing incentives to shoulder SAF’s green premium and expand demand in non-mandated markets. On infrastructure, she warns that storage and blending constraints—more than chemistry—are the immediate choke points, making regional clustering only a partial solution to highly localized bottlenecks. Looking ahead to 2040, Alyssa says SAF’s share of U.S. jet fuel will depend on breakthroughs in feedstock flexibility, robust policy support, and private-sector capital flows that can accelerate scale and close the current ambition–reality divide. I. Scene-Setting: Industry Momentum vs Reality Alyssa, the U.S. SAF Grand Challenge targets 3 billion gallons by 2030. From Aether’s vantage point, does the current pipeline of projects support that scale — or is there a widening ambition–reality gap? It’s an ambitious goal at this point – 2030 is coming up quickly, and there’s still a gap we need to address. Projects moving beyond HEFA are what will make scale possible. HEFA simply isn’t a realistic process for scaling SAF to the volumes we need. As new technologies, like Aether Aurora, come online and the first commercial plants prove the technology is efficient, we can expect a catch-up that will happen very swiftly. The deadline is tight, but with the next generation of projects for production, we have a chance to still meet the 3 billion gallons target and close the gap quickly. II. Feedstock Futures: Who Wins the Supply War Lipids dominate SAF today, but availability caps are unavoidable. Where do you see the most scalable alternatives emerging — ethanol, woody biomass, MSW, algae, or CO₂-derived fuels? Yes, lipids dominate SAF today, but there is a lot of potential in waste carbon as feedstock - industrial waste gas, biogas, and in the near future biomass waste with gasification, like agriculture residue, biomass or MSW.  CO2-derived fuels and ethanol are both progressing quickly — LanzaJet is now producing from ethanol, which is driving momentum, and the technology is there for CO2-derived fuels, however hydrogen and renewable energy costs will need to come down in order to be cost-effective. Algae may have potential, but it needs more development before it can be a truly viable and scalable alternative.  Aether is focused on electrofuels and carbon-recycled pathways. How do you ensure feedstock sustainability and avoid land-use conflicts? Our feedstocks come from waste-carbon only, so they don’t compete with food or feed in any way. We avoid land-use conflicts by only using the waste products – not anything that would have any competition with food, feed, or other commercial uses, and following a robust feedstock chain of custody review.  III. Airlines + Corporates: Who Pays for SAF’s Green Premium Airlines currently pay 2–4x the cost of conventional jet fuel. How are they hedging that exposure today — and what innovative financing instruments (book-and-claim, SAF certificates, ESG-linked offtakes) are emerging? Some airlines are investing in SAF in creative ways. JetBlue, one of Aether’s investors, has its own fund for SAF investment, now known as Sky VC , and several other airlines have similar funds to invest in SAF in different ways.  Airlines are also working very hard to partner with commercial clients who are driving SAF adoption in non-mandated markets. Much of this happens through book-and-claim systems or SAF certificates, which can help spread the cost and create more flexible financing.  Airlines are also investing money and time into education to teach their consumers about SAF and encourage support. Could differentiated branding — “climate neutral class,” for instance — unlock a consumer-led SAF market? Yes, there is a real possibility here. For example, some airlines are discussing and testing consumer incentives such as if you pay for a flight fueled by SAF, you can get upgraded to a different boarding class.  If consumers feel like they are getting direct value from sustainable options, they will choose them.  IV. Infrastructure & Deployment We talk a lot about feedstocks and chemistry, but infrastructure may be the real bottleneck. What elements of the U.S. fuel system require the fastest upgrades — blending hubs, pipelines, storage, certification? Is regional clustering — such as Gulf Coast and Pacific Northwest hub models — a viable pathway to early scale? Depending on which airport you’re sending SAF to, there are different challenges. Storage is one of the most challenging element right now, as some airports are really tight on storage space and have nowhere to store the fuel. Blending is also a challenge, but as SAF becomes more of a reality, the industry is actively working on addressing these issues.  Regional clustering can be helpful, but most situations and challenges need to be addressed on a local level, depending on each region's specific constraints.  V. Strategic Outlook Looking out to 2040, what percentage of U.S. jet fuel demand do you believe SAF can realistically meet — and what breakthroughs are non-negotiable to get there? It’s hard to say a specific percentage at this time. However, we will need breakthroughs in feedstock flexibility or to further unlock readily abundant feedstock. In order to scale production, we also need the proper infrastructure to scale.  If you had one policy lever and one private-sector lever to pull in 2025, what would they be to close the ambition–reality gap? On the policy side, I would love to see continued support at both the local, regional and federal levels for sustainable fuels, and a stronger focus on energy dependence – which should include fuels like SAF.   For Aether, private-sector investment is crucial, so I hope for continued investment in emerging and scaling technologies from the private-sector. We also need more education for corporations on the benefits of sustainability transparency. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3410/digitizing-sugar-guillermo-medina-llarena-on-new-economics-of-agrobiodiversity-and-trade.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3410/digitizing-sugar-guillermo-medina-llarena-on-new-economics-of-agrobiodiversity-and-trade.html Wed, 19 Nov 2025 14:54:42 +0530 Agrospectrum presents an exclusive interview with Guillermo José Medina Llarena, Chief Digital & Analytics Officer at Pantaleon (PSH) and Lead at Stomata Labs, a division of Findability Sciences. In this wide-ranging conversation, he explains how Pantaleon is navigating tightening U.S. tariff-rate quotas by doubling down on customer relationships and quality-driven value addition rather than reactive market shifts. Medina outlines why proximity to the U.S. premium market remains an advantage even as the company expands strategically into Africa and the Middle East, aiming for 20 per cent export share in emerging demand centers by 2030. He delves into Pantaleon’s transformation into a tech-powered sugar major—moving beyond commodity pricing through AI-enabled diversification, green chemistry, and precision fermentation—while strengthening digital traceability and logistics intelligence amid Panama Canal constraints and freight volatility. Looking ahead to 2030, he envisions Pantaleon as a resilient, low-cost regional champion that leverages sugarcane’s carbon-capture efficiency and deep data insights to thrive in a future of declining sugar consumption but rising trade and climate complexity. A. Trade Strategy & Geopolitical Balancing From a portfolio perspective, how is Pantaleon re-optimizing market exposure as the U.S. tightens tariff-rate quotas and renegotiates regional preferences? From a portfolio perspective, Pantaleon views sugar as a foundational commodity where clear, equitable trade rules are essential for all participants. Rather than reactive re-optimization amid U.S. tariff-rate quota tightenings — we emphasize enduring strategies like deepening customer relationships and enhancing product quality through value-added offerings. This ensures resilience without necessitating major shifts, allowing us to sustain exposure while exploring complementary markets. Does the industry need to hedge against structural over-dependence on the United States — or is proximity to a premium market still a net advantage? The sugar industry operates at the intersection of local efficiencies and global dynamics, where hedging against over-dependence on any single market, including the United States, must be weighed against its advantages. Proximity to this premium market—yielding prices around $500+ per ton versus the global average of $400—remains a net positive for swift delivery and higher margins. Our strategy focuses on low-cost production, superior quality, and composure during periods of turbulence, avoiding drastic directional changes that could disrupt established efficiencies. Which emerging demand centers — Asia, the Middle East, Africa — are realistic diversification targets for Central American supply chains? Emerging demand centers in Africa and the Middle East represent viable diversification targets for Central American supply chains, driven by above-average consumption growth and a preference for high-quality products. These regions, with urbanization fueling demand at 4-5 per cent annually, align well with our capabilities; Pantaleon is already active there and plans measured expansion to capture 20 per cent of our export share by 2030, leveraging reliable logistics and certifications to build long-term partnerships. B. Competitive Edge & Supply Chain Intelligence Pantaleon operates one of the most advanced export supply chains in the region. Is digital traceability now a cost of compliance — or a market differentiator capable of commanding premiums? Digital traceability is transitioning from a mere compliance requirement to an industry norm, potentially evolving toward on-chain transactions for enhanced security and collaborative efficiency. While it may not yield sustained premiums or act as a long-term differentiator, we plan to integrate it seamlessly at minimal cost to support operational smoothness, ensuring it complements rather than burdens our processes. How do port infrastructure risks, Panama Canal constraints, and rising freight volatility reshape your contracting strategy ? Port infrastructure risks, Panama Canal constraints (e.g., transits reduced to 33 per day in 2025 due to droughts), and freight volatility (up 20 per cent year-over-year) underscore the need for data-driven agility in contracting. Greater visibility into logistics variables enables superior competitiveness; our approach prioritizes optimizing known factors over predicting unpredictable geopolitical or climatic events, fostering consistent, assertive decisions with a long-term mindset to outperform peers. C. Market Power & Pricing Architecture The global sugar trade is still largely commodity-priced. What is Pantaleon’s strategy to escape the commodity trap through segmentation — such as low-carbon sugar, specialty sweeteners, or identity-preserved lots? To escape the commodity trap, we recognize sugarcane's potential as an efficient energy crop and are advancing diversification through AI-enabled innovations, green chemicals, materials & supplies, and precision fermentation. This positions us to command premiums for segmented products, transforming traditional trade into value-driven opportunities. With volatility accelerating, do you foresee greater mill-consolidation and regional champions emerging to counterbalance Brazil’s dominance? Accelerating volatility is likely to spur greater mill consolidation, as seen in past agricultural trends, while emerging technologies could balance this with tokenization for broader investor alignment. Regional champions may emerge to counterbalance Brazil's 44 million ton dominance, fostering more inclusive and scalable structures in the industry. D. Digital Transformation as Trade Armor Where does AI-driven risk management make the strongest business case today — crop yields, mill efficiency, or market intelligence? AI-driven risk management delivers the strongest business case through holistic value chain optimization—from enhancing crop yields and mill efficiency to securing margins—ensuring comprehensive risk mitigation in volatile environments. E. Security of Supply & Climate Risk The Gulf of Mexico and Central American corridor is increasingly disaster-prone. Could water scarcity force a regional pivot in planting zones — shifting the competitive map of cane production by 2035? In disaster-prone regions like the Gulf of Mexico and Central America, water scarcity (projected to rise by 2050) could necessitate pivots in planting zones by 2035. Enhanced anticipation capabilities will reveal optimal decisions, determining sustained competitiveness in a shifting production landscape. Climate is a non-controllable aspect of farming; thus we focus more in making the best optimization decisions with the given climatic conditions. Closing Vision What does Pantaleon 2030 look like in a world where sugar consumption is falling but trade complexity and technology intensity are rising? Pantaleon in 2030 envisions a resilient leader preserving core competencies in cane production, harvesting, sugar recovery, and logistics while embracing technology-driven diversification into AI, new chemistry, materials, and food innovations. In a world of declining sugar consumption but rising trade complexity, sugarcane's inherent carbon-capture efficiency will remain a planetary advantage, enabling harmony and efficacy in sustainable operations. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3403/climate-capital-and-control-dr-josephine-adebayo-calls-for-feminist-reboot-of-nigerias-blue-economy.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3403/climate-capital-and-control-dr-josephine-adebayo-calls-for-feminist-reboot-of-nigerias-blue-economy.html Tue, 18 Nov 2025 11:33:11 +0530 In an exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Josephine Oluseyi Adebayo, Lecturer in Fish Nutrition and Health Management, lays bare the gendered inequities shaping Nigeria’s blue economy. She explains how structural barriers — from patriarchal norms to skewed financing systems — confine women to low-margin post-harvest roles despite their centrality to coastal livelihoods. Josephine argues that climate adaptation funding, aquaculture innovation, and trade policy must be redesigned with women not just as beneficiaries but as decision-makers and enterprise leaders. She highlights the transformative potential of cluster farming, insect-protein feed systems, digital branding, and gender-intelligent finance to unlock women-led growth at scale. Looking ahead to 2040, she envisions a blue economy where Nigerian women are owners, innovators, and catalysts of economic resilience — provided the country acts boldly today. Nigeria’s blue economy could unlock billions in value — yet most women remain confined to low-margin post-harvest roles. What structural failures are stopping women from capturing value upstream? Nigeria's blue economy is incredibly promising, but women's participation is largely a function of societal and cultural dynamics rather than clear policy constraints. Normative gender expectations and patriarchal order historically relegated women to downstream roles as processors and traders, while men monopolized the more financially lucrative and capital-intensive fields of fishing and logistics. In several coastal settlements, women remain oblivious to upstream prospects, or if they do exist, they lack the resources to systematically pursue them. Transforming this situation necessitates more than just policy design. It requires a robust mix of responsiveness, training, gender aware investment and policy inclusion aimed at empowering women to navigate beyond traditional roles and occupy an equitable place throughout the entire value chain. Climate justice meets gender justice on Nigeria’s coastlines — women face salinity intrusion, fish stock collapse, and unsafe processing conditions first. How should climate adaptation funding be redesigned so women are not just recipients but decision-makers? Climate finance should be inclusive and gender responsive. While Nigeria is progressing through the National Climate Investment Platform, women’s participation in the decision-making processes continues to be minimal. Failure to adequately address the gender dimension on programs is too common as funding committees are often comprised solely of men. Women living and working in the coastal zone have the experience to know best the areas climate impacts hurt most and therefore should be the ones designing, supervising, and allocating climate adaptation funding. Their inclusion in leadership and technical decision-making is crucial to ensure justice is served in the effectiveness of adaptation. Feed cost, disease, and poor logistics keep small-scale aquaculture uncompetitive. Which innovations could enable profitable women-led aquaculture at scale? Feed remains the highest cost in aquaculture, but new innovations are emerging. Research into insect protein, especially in black soldier fly and cricket larvae, combined with aquaponics and circular aquaculture, is lowering costs and reducing environmental impacts related to feed. The University of Ibadan's INCiTiS-Food is leading the way in adopting these innovations. Cluster farming models, like the Eriwe Fish Farmers’ Village in Ogun State and CGE Africa’s Empowered Coastal Fishing Women project, also help women access resources and recover from shocks more quickly. These efforts, along with the training and leadership of Women in Fisheries Fellowship (FUWOLIFF), are not only modernizing aquaculture in Nigeria but also establishing it as a space for women entrepreneurship. Nigeria still imports fish despite being Africa’s top catfish producer. What trade and branding strategies could help women-owned enterprises scale from survival to export? Women-owned enterprises can expand their exports through targeted financing, training, and digital branding. Access to export credit, flexible loans, and mentorship will help women increase their production sustainably. Training in quality standards, certification, and international trade logistics is crucial for meeting global demand. Equally important is that digital literacy, e-commerce platforms, and storytelling help connect women entrepreneurs to regional and international buyers. A gender-sensitive export ecosystem must combine finance, quality assurance, and branding support so that Nigerian women’s aquaculture products can compete globally. Access to capital remains exclusionary — collateral and risk scoring are biased against women. What would a gender-intelligent financing architecture for the blue economy look like? Attention must be given to the fact that a gender-sensitive financing framework must reconfigure financial systems to accommodate the needs of women. This requires crafting products in consideration of women’s needs: adaptive collateral policies, algorithmic risk assessment, and micro-to-meso level lending. This also necessitates including women as leaders in financial institutions, allowing women to influence the creation of products designed for them. Such change requires collaboration between the public and private sectors; women may take the lead, but both must support it. In the end, gender-sensitive finance promotes blue economy growth by harnessing women’s productivity and ingenuity. Data invisibility distorts policymaking — women’s contribution to fisheries GDP remains undervalued. How can Nigeria institutionalize gender-disaggregated data? For Nigeria to integrate gender responsive policies, effective policy, subsidy reforms and investment rely on accurate, reliable and gender disaggregated data. There is a need to involve the National Bureau of Statistics, the ministries of finance and the sector agencies in Nigeria to mainstream integrating gender data within all the economic statistics. There is a need to incorporate gender-responsive reporting within all sector institutions to help identify where women are present, underfunded, and experiencing exclusion. Such data is useful for making subsidy reforms, developing equitable investment incentives, and establishing skill programs to address gender inequalities in fisheries and aquaculture. Once we accurately quantify women's contributions, we will be better able to recognize and scale their impact. When you imagine Nigeria’s blue economy in 2040, what must change now so women become owners and innovators, not passengers? By 2040, Nigerian women must shift from participation to ownership and leadership. This involves creating and managing businesses in emerging areas, such as seaweed farming, fish waste recycling, aquaculture technology, and blue finance. Women should pursue new economic opportunities through innovation, investment, and mentoring others. The bold change begins now with policies that remove barriers, funding that trusts women, and a mindset that sees women not just as beneficiaries but as drivers of Nigeria’s blue prosperity. ---- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3380/europe-leads-asia-accelerates-suzanne-mckenzie-on-global-push-for-recycled-jet-fuel.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3380/europe-leads-asia-accelerates-suzanne-mckenzie-on-global-push-for-recycled-jet-fuel.html Mon, 10 Nov 2025 12:16:11 +0530 In an exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Suzanne McKenzie, Sales Director, Lifecycle Oils Ltd, UK, explains how Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) produced from used cooking oil goes through advanced filtration, hydrotreating, and hydrocracking before being blended to meet strict jet specifications—distinctly different from fossil fuels derived via crude oil distillation. She notes that second-generation SAF from waste streams can slash lifecycle emissions by up to 80 per cent versus fossil fuel, without competing with food crops or land. Mandates in the UK, EU and Asia are accelerating adoption, though scaling production and infrastructure remains a major challenge. Suzanne highlights constraints around finite UCO supply, price gaps, and rapidly growing SAF demand—forecast to reach 15 million Mt by 2030 versus ~1 million Mt today. Looking ahead, she sees diversification into algae oils, tall oil, cover crops and Power-to-Liquid e-fuels as essential to achieving aviation’s Net Zero ambitions. I. SAF Production & Environmental Impact From Fryer to Fuel: Could you walk us through the lifecycle of SAF made from used cooking oil, highlighting the key technological and operational steps that differentiate it from conventional jet fuel? First, we collect the used cooking oil (UCO) from across the food industry, including food manufacturers, quick service restaurants and food service providers, as well as from household waste sites around the UK. This is then transported to our processing plant in Wednesbury.We then filter the UCO to remove all contaminants and process it using a unique multi-stage filtration and settling process to turn it into a specification suitable for use as a feedstock for producing SAF, HVO, Biofuels and our patented LF100 biofuel. The pre-treated UCO is then hydrotreated – a process where hydrogen is used to remove the oxygen from the free fatty acids, converting the carbon bonds into long-chain hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbons are then hydrocracked to break them down into shorter molecules through isomerisation, which is critical for creating a fuel with the right freezing point and combustion properties for use in jet engines. The resulting fuel is then blended with conventional jet fuel to the required level to meet to required specification for SAF. Conventional jet fuel is created by fractional distillation and cracking, where the oil is heated and separated into different fractions, including one that can be used as jet fuel.Sustainability Metrics: How does SAF made from waste streams like used cooking oil perform in terms of carbon intensity, lifecycle emissions reductions, and broader environmental benefits compared to traditional fossil jet fuels? The sustainability credentials of SAF depend heavily on the feedstock used to create it. First-generation SAF – made from virgin crops like palm oil or rapeseed oil – come with inherent trade-offs from a sustainability perspective. Growing feedstock crops for SAF can be carbon-intensive and are associated with deforestation, land conversion, biodiversity loss, and high water consumption. They require agricultural land, which means directly competing with the food chain for resources. Second-generation SAF, like UCO processed by Lifecycle Oils, offers substantial environmental advantages by avoiding these issues entirely. There’s no extra land required, and no additional resources required to grow new crops. It’s repurposing a waste stream, and one we have great access to as we’re partnered with 96% of household recycling centres across the UK. As a result of using previously waste materials, UCO-derived biofuels can slash lifecycle carbon footprints by an estimated 80 per cent when compared to conventional fuels, and 40 per cent when compared to first-generation biofuels.II. Industry Adoption & Market DynamicsAdoption Trends: How quickly are airlines and airports embracing SAF, and what patterns are you seeing in Europe versus other regions? Are current mandates and voluntary targets driving meaningful uptake? There is a clear trend – countries worldwide see SAF as the best way to cut aviation emissions in the mid-term.As a result, airlines and airports worldwide are steadily increasing their SAF use, with the SAF mandates driving much of the uptake – especially in Europe and the UK, where we already have a 2 per cent SAF mandate in place for 2025, which will rise to 6 per cent and 10 per cent respectively by 2030.Across the Asia-Pacific region, we’re also seeing new policies, targets and emerging targets on SAF. Japan is exploring a 10 per cent SAF mandate by 2030 for departing flights, and Singapore is introducing a 1 per cent SAF target for 2026, which could rise to 3-5 per cent by 2030. South Korea and India are both considering a 1 per cent target for 2027. In terms of voluntary uptake, we’re seeing commitments tied to net-zero pledges from airlines, but it’s the mandates that are likely to drive real change.Feasibility & Scalability: SAF adoption faces technical and logistical challenges. From your perspective, what are the main bottlenecks in scaling production, blending, and distribution for commercial aviation? One key challenge is bringing production capacity on board to meet demand! Current forecasts predict that by 2030, global demand for SAF will be around 15 million Mt, and by 2035, this looks set to reach 40 million Mt. In 2024, global SAF production was around 1 million Mt, with current predictions suggesting global capacity will only grow to around 18 million Mt by 2035. There’s a big gap!There are also challenges in developing the blending and depot infrastructure at major airports, so that the SAF can be integrated into existing supply chains.From a UCO perspective, the challenge is supply – UCO is a finite and increasingly in-demand resource for all kinds of biofuels. While there is room to scale, it’s not infinite, and will only ever form part of the SAF mix. The final challenge is price. SAF is currently more expensive than jet fuel – and significantly so! In a fuel-hungry industry where profit margins are tight, and are currently focused on securing the cheapest fuel possible, the market is naturally resistant to more expensive solutions, however much better for the planet. III. Policy & Regulatory LeversGovernment Role: How critical are policy incentives, mandates, and regulatory frameworks in accelerating SAF adoption? What works best: carbon pricing, blending obligations, or subsidies for feedstock collection? Blending mandates are already creating a guaranteed market for SAF and accelerating adoption worldwide. It seems likely these mandates will be the main drivers over the coming decade.Carbon pricing is an interesting prospect that could have a meaningful impact on the price difference between SAF (and especially UCO-derived SAF) and conventional jet fuel, which could make it more appealing to airlines.Tax subsidies definitely make a big difference – the US Sustainable Aviation Fuel tax credit directly reduces the final cost of SAF, making it more competitive and attractive to airlines. In the UK, there is talk of a revenue certainty mechanism, which could also stabilise costs and attract future investment into the SAF market.Lifecycle Oils collects UCO from takeaways, high-end restaurants, high street chains, industrial facilities and food manufacturers of all shapes and sizes, so naturally we’d love subsidies on collection – but given the rising demand and limits on supply for UCO globally, it seems unlikely that this would be introduced.Cross-Border Policy Alignment: Given aviation’s global nature, how do differing regulatory regimes in the EU, UK, and Asia impact the economics and deployment of SAF produced from recycled oils? The fuel markets are all connected, and there are so many different factors in play (tax credits, mandates, tariffs, lifecycle emissions criteria, etc.) across the globe that the picture becomes very complex regarding market demands and incentives to supply.In terms of the global UCO market, we’re already seeing some impact in terms of reduced overseas supply, as Asian countries increase biofuel blends and consider SAF mandates.Asia is a key source of UCO, but as Asian countries (e.g., Japan, India, Singapore) introduce their own SAF mandates, they will increasingly seek to utilise their domestic UCO supply. This will have a knock-on effect in Europe and potentially drive up prices as supply constraints come into play.IV. Economics & Supply Chain Cost and Competitiveness: SAF is often more expensive than conventional jet fuel. How do supply chain constraints—such as feedstock availability, collection logistics, and refinery scale—affect long-term pricing and commercial viability ?With oil prices depressed, and aviation fuel exempt from tax in many cases, gaining parity with jet fuel prices is a real challenge – especially if the projections are right, and future demand for SAF significantly outstrips supply. There is a chance that future carbon pricing, or the introduction of a jet fuel tax, could close this gap – but the commercial viability of SAF is primarily supported by mandates, and a global desire to decarbonise aviation and achieve ‘Jet Zero.’Investment & Industry Partnerships: What role do corporate offtake agreements, private investment, and airline collaborations play in scaling SAF production sustainably and profitably?Long-term corporate agreements help guarantee demand, which is essential for gaining finance for production projects and for sustainable profitability.Aligning with corporate sustainability objectives, like reducing Scope 3 emissions, can also support scaling SAF production. If decarbonising aviation is a real priority, then SAF is the most realistic and implementable solution we have. ‘Book and claim’ credits or premiums systems can be effective ways of subsidising SAF production, while helping corporates to fulfil sustainability ambitions. Global Potential: Used cooking oil is a finite resource. Beyond this feedstock, what other waste or renewable sources hold the most promise for SAF at scale, and how can Lifecycle Oils help lead that diversification ? At Lifecycle Oils, our focus is on UCO – it’s about utilising a waste product to create sustainable fuels as part of a more circular economy, and our mission is to continue to scale this model by engaging with companies across the food industry and beyond.Ultimately though, the supply is finite – and if we’re going to deliver SAF at scale, it will only be part of the solution, and to meet the mandate, we will need to increase the feedstocks used. In terms of more sustainable solutions, using oilseed cover crops is an option, and there is real potential in oils derived from algae – though this is still in the very early stages of development. Tall Oil is another good source of feedstock to produce fossil-free biofuel. It is crude tall oil (CTO) and a byproduct of the wood pulping process. This demonstrates a pathway for producing SAF from a renewable, forestry-based feedstock, which can reduce lifecycle emissions compared to traditional jet fuel.  Alternative fuel options and SAF alternatives like synthetic Power-to-Liquid (PtL) synthetic e-fuels, or even the introduction of hydrogen flight, could also be part of the long-term solution to decarbonisation. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3377/2030-vision-arya-ag-aims-for-worlds-most-climate-resilient-grain-network.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3377/2030-vision-arya-ag-aims-for-worlds-most-climate-resilient-grain-network.html Fri, 07 Nov 2025 12:58:40 +0530 In an exclusive interview with AgroSpectrum, Shenoy Mathew, Chief Sustainability Officer, Arya.ag, highlights how its SmartAG Award 2025 is more than recognition—it is validation of a climate-resilient grain commerce model already operating at national scale. By embedding sustainability into everyday storage, finance, and trading systems, the company is delivering measurable climate gains and income stability to over 800,000 smallholder farmers across 425+ districts. Women-led Smart Farm Centres and technologies like the AryaQ AI grain quality device are transforming trust, transparency, and decision-making in rural markets. With patient, impact-aligned capital and global adaptation potential, Arya.ag is positioning itself at the nexus of profitability and planetary resilience. Looking ahead to 2030, the company envisions climate risk management and data-backed empowerment as built-in features of every grain transaction—setting a new benchmark for post-harvest systems globally. From Recognition to Scale: Arya.ag has been recognised with the SmartAG Award 2025 for embedding climate resilience into India’s grain commerce. Awards are accolades—but how does this recognition translate into real-world acceleration for farmers, investors, and the broader agri-value chain? The recognition affirms that climate resilience can be built into agricultural systems that already function at scale, without requiring parallel structures or new layers of complexity. What it brings is not just visibility, but validation of a model that integrates profitability, inclusion, and environmental responsibility into the everyday mechanics of post-harvest grain management. Arya.ag has focused on embedding sustainability into existing systems, ensuring that storage, finance, and market access deliver environmental returns as naturally as they deliver economic ones. Over the past year alone, our decentralised network helped avoid post-harvest loss of more than 210,320 metric tonnes of foodgrain. Preserving this grain prevented an estimated 233,603 tonnes of carbon emissions, conserved 91.4 billion litres of water, and eliminated the need for 16,826 tonnes of fertiliser. These outcomes are not incidental, they are a direct result of improving storage and market access for farmers across more than 425 districts. For farmers, this translates into fewer distress sales and greater flexibility in timing their transactions. For investors, it signals a scalable, data-driven model that aligns impact and return. And for the broader agri-value chain, it shows that climate responsiveness does not have to rely on specialised interventions, it can emerge through operational efficiency and deeper participation from the smallest actors in the system. The Smallholder Lens: India’s agricultural backbone remains smallholder farmers, many of them climate-vulnerable. How do Smart Farm Centres bridge the gap between hyperlocal realities—erratic rainfall, fragmented landholdings—and advanced technologies like AI, drones, and real-time weather advisories? Smallholder farming operates within constraints that are both structural and climatic. The Smart Farm Centres were designed to respond to these conditions by creating access to technology and information where they are needed most. Each centre serves as a rural hub that connects farmers to services such as soil testing, drone spraying, and hyperlocal weather forecasting. These services are not standalone activities; they function together to improve decision-making at every stage of the cropping cycle. For Instance In Bundelkhand, farmers have used weather data from these centres to plan their harvest windows and reduce exposure to untimely rainfall. In Sitapur, drone spraying has improved the precision of pesticide application, lowering costs and minimising environmental exposure. In districts of eastern Uttar Pradesh, soil testing has helped farmers calibrate their fertiliser use more efficiently. The centres are operated by women from the same communities who are trained to deliver these services, which ensures trust, reliability, and continuity. This model allows climate-relevant tools to become part of everyday practice rather than occasional interventions. Tech as a Trust Builder: AryaQ’s AI-powered grain quality device brings radical transparency to procurement and pricing. In a market often plagued by mistrust and middlemen, how is technology reshaping the farmer–buyer relationship, and do you see this model becoming a new standard across emerging markets? Trust in agricultural markets has historically depended on physical inspection and subjective assessment. AryaQ introduces a data-driven approach to measuring grain quality that makes the process faster, more reliable, and easier to replicate across locations. The device uses computer vision to assess factors such as grain size, breakage, and the presence of fungal elements. The results are available instantly, even in areas without continuous connectivity, which makes it suitable for remote markets. As both sides have access to identical data, there is greater transparency in pricing and fewer disputes. This change strengthens relationships and encourages repeat transactions. Given its adaptability, AryaQ can be calibrated for a range of commodities and geographies, which makes it relevant beyond India’s borders. The Women-led Edge: The Smart Farm Centres are run by women Community Value Chain Resource Persons. Beyond inclusion, what structural advantages does a women-led model bring to grain commerce, and can this approach be scaled without diluting impact? The presence of women as operational leaders within Smart Farm Centres has added a layer of trust and continuity that is essential in rural systems. These women are drawn from the same localities they serve, which gives them a strong understanding of the agricultural calendar, the challenges of smallholder farming, and the patterns of local trade. Their involvement has led to greater participation from farmers and has improved the adoption of services related to quality assessment, sorting, and storage. In Maharashtra, women-led sourcing units have reduced produce rejection rates by almost 30 percent at the collection stage. This improvement directly affects farmer incomes and reduces post-harvest losses. To ensure that the model grows responsibly, Arya.ag invests in training and performance monitoring, with a focus on building long-term professional capacity. As the network expands, the objective is not only to increase numbers but also to preserve the quality and reliability that make this structure effective. Climate and Capital: You’ve positioned Arya.ag at the intersection of climate resilience and economic resilience. What kind of capital—impact, venture, institutional—is best aligned with scaling this model, and how do you balance profitability with sustainability when most agri-tech startups struggle to break even? Capital that understands the cycles and risks of agriculture is most suitable for models such as ours. Arya.ag’s operations are built on commercially viable services that reduce inefficiencies rather than depend on temporary funding. We manage close to seven million tonnes of agricultural produce through our decentralised network across more than 425 districts, which provides both reach and depth in understanding rural markets. The capital that aligns with this vision is patient and impact-oriented but also disciplined about financial performance. Investors such as responsAbility and the US International Development Finance Corporation have supported Arya.ag because they recognise that environmental benefits and economic efficiency emerge together when systems are designed well. The balance between sustainability and profitability is achieved by ensuring that each intervention, whether in storage, finance, or quality assessment creates measurable value for every participant in the value chain. Global Relevance: With 11,000 digitised warehouses and a network spanning 800,000 farmers, Arya.ag is already India’s largest integrated grain commerce platform. How transferable is your Smart Farm Centre model to Africa, Southeast Asia, or Latin America, where climate shocks and smallholder fragmentation mirror India’s challenges? The fundamental issues faced by smallholders in India are similar to those observed in several other parts of the world. Limited storage near farms, inconsistent quality standards, and poor access to working capital are common constraints. The Smart Farm Centre model is structured to be modular so that it can adapt to different agricultural and climatic contexts. Each component such as soil testing, digital quality assessment, or credit linkage can be introduced independently and scaled based on demand and infrastructure. In collaboration with partners in East Africa, we are exploring ways to adapt this model to local crops and climatic conditions. The ability to train community-based facilitators and the flexibility of tools like AryaQ make replication feasible. However, success depends on tailoring delivery mechanisms to local institutions and farmer networks, rather than exporting the Indian experience directly. The aim is to share knowledge and process design while allowing each geography to build its own form of resilience. The Long View: If we fast-forward to 2030, what does success look like for Arya.ag? Is it about doubling farmer incomes, embedding climate risk management into every transaction, or becoming a blueprint for grain systems transformation globally? By 2030, success for Arya.ag would be defined by the strength and stability of the systems that smallholders rely on after harvest. It would mean that every farmer using our platform can store their produce safely, understand its quality, access credit based on that stored value, and sell it when conditions are favourable. These capabilities lead to income stability and reduced exposure to climate and market shocks. At present, Arya.ag serves more than 800,000 farmers through a network of 11,000 digitised warehouses and over 1,600 Farmer Producer Organisations. Over the next five years, our focus is on deepening these relationships and embedding data-backed transparency across every transaction. The goal is not to create a blueprint for others to copy but to demonstrate that a balanced system, one that values both livelihoods and resources can endure and grow in the face of climate uncertainty. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3374/role-of-mancozeb-in-safeguarding-grapes-global-food-security.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3374/role-of-mancozeb-in-safeguarding-grapes-global-food-security.html Thu, 06 Nov 2025 12:33:57 +0530 The agriculture sector, known for its high-value fruits and significant export potential, is facing a convergence of agronomic, economic, and regulatory pressures. On October 13, a distinguished panel of scientists, industry leaders, and regulatory experts convened virtually to discuss the multifaceted role of Mancozeb in sustainable agriculture, in Agrospectrum webinar titled - The Future of Mancozeb: Science, Stewardship, and Global Food Security. The webinar examined the fungicide’s scientific attributes, its integration into disease management programs, regulatory trends, and its broader implications for farm profitability and food security.  The virtually held discussions underscored that fungicide stewardship is no longer merely a technical matter; it is intricately linked to growers’ livelihoods, market access, and global food stability.  Economic Lessons from Disease Modeling The session commenced with a presentation by Dr Kaushik Banerjee, FRSC, FNAAS, Director of ICAR-NRC for Grapes and Honorary Professor at Queen's University Belfast and the University of Laval, Canada. Dr Banerjee framed the discussion by highlighting the economic and systemic impacts of grape disease outbreaks. Using advanced agronomic modeling, he demonstrated that fungal infections, particularly under high-pressure disease scenarios, can trigger cascading effects on farm profitability, regional supply chains, and even international markets. His analysis emphasised that targeted fungicide programs, including those employing Mancozeb, are not merely preventive measures at the field level but essential tools for stabilising grower income and maintaining global food security. "Every outbreak of grape disease is not just a threat to individual farms—it sends shockwaves through regional supply chains, export markets, and farmer livelihoods. Strategic fungicide programs, including judicious use of Mancozeb, are critical investments. Timely, science-driven interventions safeguard yields, stabilize income, and ensure that agriculture continues to feed both people and economies sustainably." – Dr Kaushik Banerjee, FRSC, FNAAS, Director of ICAR-NRC for Grapes and Honorary Professor at Queen's University Belfast and the University of Laval, Canada Dr Banerjee illustrated that under certain high-incidence conditions, the absence of an effective fungicide program could result in yield losses exceeding 30 to 40 percent, with downstream effects on pricing, processing capacity, and export viability. He stressed that investments in fungicide programs, though an upfront cost, are economically justified when considering the potential revenue losses avoided and the risk mitigation achieved.  Ensuring Safe Access to Mancozeb Worldwide Following Dr Banerjee’s presentation, the discussion shifted to regulatory science and risk assessment. Richard Mills, Global Director of Trade and Government Affairs at UPL, provided a comprehensive overview of the evolving global regulatory landscape for fungicides. Mills articulated the distinction between risk-based and hazard-based regulatory frameworks, emphasising that risk-based assessments evaluate the probability and impact of exposure under realistic use conditions, whereas hazard-based approaches may restrict chemicals based solely on intrinsic properties without contextual application data. He further elaborated on the importance of personal protective equipment compliance, residue monitoring, and data-driven stewardship programs to maintain both domestic and international access to Mancozeb. "Regulatory frameworks are only as effective as the practices behind them. Risk-based assessments let us evaluate real-world exposure, while hazard-based approaches can be overly restrictive. By combining compliance, PPE, residue monitoring, and proactive stewardship, we ensure safe, responsible use of Mancozeb, protecting both public health and growers’ market access across diverse international jurisdictions." –Richard Mills, Global Director of Trade and Government Affairs at UPL Mills highlighted that harmonizing regulatory compliance across countries is essential for exporters, as maximum residue limits (MRLs) vary widely across jurisdictions. He stressed that proactive engagement with regulators, transparent record-keeping, and adherence to recommended application practices are vital to safeguarding market access while ensuring public safety.  How Tech is Revolutionising Disease Control Building upon the regulatory perspective, Sandeep Jagtap, Senior Business Development Manager at Ross LifeScience, addressed the integration of Mancozeb into Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies and the role of digital agriculture. Jagtap elaborated on how precision tools, including digital disease forecasting models, remote monitoring platforms, and app-based advisory services, allow growers to optimise fungicide use, ensuring applications are timely and necessary, thereby minimizing both economic and environmental costs. He underscored that combining chemical interventions with cultural practices such as canopy management, crop rotation, and resistant varieties enhances the sustainability and effectiveness of disease control programs. "Integrating Mancozeb into IPM isn’t just about spraying—it’s about precision, timing, and sustainability. Digital tools like disease forecasting and remote monitoring help growers apply fungicides only when necessary, reducing costs and environmental impact. When combined with cultural practices like canopy management and resistant varieties, these strategies optimize yield, protect the ecosystem, and make viticulture smarter for every scale of farming." – Sandeep Jagtap, Senior Business Development Manager at Ross LifeScience By demonstrating case studies where digital tools helped reduce fungicide usage without compromising yield, Jagtap highlighted that technology adoption in viticulture can be scaled to support both large commercial growers and smaller farmers, providing actionable insights that translate into improved farm profitability and environmental stewardship.   Collaborative Approaches to Fungicide Stewardship Concluding the speaker presentations, Amiya Kumar Bartia, Strategic Marketing Head at Indofil, shared the industry’s perspective on stewardship and sustainable crop protection strategies. Bartia emphasized that ensuring responsible access to Mancozeb requires multi-level collaboration among growers, industry stakeholders, and regulators. He described initiatives such as educational outreach programs, grower training sessions, and digital monitoring tools that reinforce proper application practices and adherence to safety protocols. "Responsible access to Mancozeb demands collaboration across growers, industry, and regulators. Stewardship isn’t just compliance—it’s a strategic imperative. Through training, outreach, and digital monitoring, we ensure safe, effective application while safeguarding market continuity. By building trust and engagement, we balance crop protection, environmental responsibility, and social accountability, promoting sustainable practices in high-value horticulture." –Amiya Kumar Bartia, Strategic Marketing Head at Indofil Bartia noted that stewardship programs are not merely regulatory obligations but strategic imperatives that secure long-term market continuity and support sustainable agricultural systems. By fostering trust and engagement between stakeholders, the industry aims to balance crop protection needs with environmental and social responsibility, illustrating a pragmatic approach to chemical management in high-value horticulture. Following the formal presentations, the webinar hosted a dynamic Q&A session, providing participants an opportunity to engage directly with the expert panel. Key questions centered on practical challenges, including managing resistance to single-site fungicides, navigating divergent international MRLs, adopting digital forecasting tools, and understanding the cost-benefit dynamics of fungicide programs. In addressing resistance concerns, Dr Banerjee recommended adherence to rotation strategies and integration of multi-site fungicides like Mancozeb into IPM programs. Richard Mills responded to regulatory queries, emphasizing the necessity of maintaining meticulous residue records and proactively engaging with trade authorities to navigate changing international standards. When participants inquired about digital adoption among smallholder farmers, Sandeep Jagtap highlighted the scalability of mobile-based platforms and cloud-supported advisory services that enable data-driven decision-making even for resource-constrained growers. Dr Banerjee quantified the economic benefits of preventive fungicide programs, showing that costs incurred are substantially offset by avoided yield losses, revenue stabilization, and mitigation of downstream market risks. Finally, Bartia discussed the components of effective stewardship, including transparent application practices, grower partnerships, and continuous monitoring, which collectively ensure responsible fungicide use while safeguarding the environment. Several overarching themes emerged from the discussion. First, Mancozeb remains an indispensable tool in grape disease management, particularly in regions facing high disease pressure. Its multi-site activity not only provides immediate disease control but also preserves the efficacy of other fungicides, underpinning the sustainability of crop protection programs. Second, agronomic and economic modeling validates the cost-effectiveness of fungicide interventions, highlighting that upfront expenditure on well-planned programs mitigates larger financial risks from yield losses, quality deterioration, and compromised market access. Third, regulatory vigilance and proactive stewardship are crucial to ensuring safe, compliant access to fungicides in a rapidly evolving global trade environment. Fourth, the integration of digital agriculture and IPM enhances both efficacy and sustainability, enabling precision application, reducing environmental impact, and supporting data-driven farm management. Finally, collaborative industry frameworks, which align growers, regulatory bodies, and companies, are essential for maintaining market continuity, promoting responsible chemical use, and reinforcing sustainable agricultural practices. The webinar also underscored the broader implications of fungicide management beyond the vineyard. By mitigating disease losses and supporting yield stability, effective fungicide programs contribute to food security, particularly in regions dependent on horticultural exports for economic and nutritional resilience. In addition, the discussions highlighted that responsible fungicide stewardship intersects with environmental goals, including reduction of chemical overuse, protection of soil and water quality, and mitigation of pesticide resistance. As the agricultural sector navigates the dual pressures of climate variability and intensifying disease outbreaks, the integrated strategies discussed in this webinar offer a blueprint for sustainable crop protection. Participants and speakers alike noted that the convergence of scientific knowledge, regulatory compliance, economic modeling, and digital innovation is reshaping the landscape of viticulture. Mancozeb’s role, while sometimes viewed through the lens of regulatory scrutiny, remains pivotal in maintaining both productivity and market viability. The insights shared during the webinar demonstrate that strategic, data-driven approaches to fungicide use can yield multifaceted benefits, reinforcing economic resilience for growers, sustaining export markets, and protecting public health and the environment. The dialogue also highlighted the importance of ongoing education, capacity building, and collaboration among all stakeholders, as sustainable crop protection requires continuous adaptation to evolving challenges and opportunities. In conclusion, the Mancozeb stewardship webinar successfully illuminated the complex, interconnected dimensions of modern grape cultivation. The expert panel provided a comprehensive analysis of agronomic strategies, regulatory frameworks, digital innovations, and stewardship initiatives, offering actionable insights for growers, industry participants, and policymakers. The integration of scientific rigor, economic modeling, and regulatory understanding demonstrated that sustainable crop protection is achievable when multi-disciplinary approaches are applied thoughtfully and collaboratively. By emphasizing responsible fungicide use, digital integration, and stakeholder engagement, the webinar charted a pragmatic path forward for safeguarding grape yields, ensuring market access, and contributing to global food security. The discussions reaffirmed that effective disease management is not merely a technical endeavor but a critical component of resilient agricultural systems capable of meeting both economic and nutritional demands in a rapidly changing world. ---- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3372/chemical-crunch-biological-breakthrough-rethinking-fertiliser-strategy-in-volatile-world.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3372/chemical-crunch-biological-breakthrough-rethinking-fertiliser-strategy-in-volatile-world.html Wed, 05 Nov 2025 14:47:45 +0530 The 2025 fertiliser upheaval has laid bare the disquieting vulnerabilities of India’s nutrient security—an economy shackled to volatile global markets, skewed subsidies, and an unhealthy addiction to artificially cheap urea. What appears as a transient supply disturbance is, in reality, a geopolitical tremor triggered by China’s export restrictions, Russia’s selective opportunism, and the capriciousness of global energy prices, all converging to imperil the livelihoods of millions of smallholders. This article therefore discusses how emergency imports and ballooning subsidies merely anaesthetise a deeper malaise while the soil continues to suffer from decades of nutritional imbalance. It scrutinises the emerging promise of biofertilisers and microbial technologies—no naïve replacements, but synergistic enhancers capable of restoring soil vitality, improving nutrient-use efficiency, and relieving India’s fiscal burden. Ultimately, it calls for a paradigm shift toward a resilient hybrid nutrient strategy that embeds biological intelligence into mainstream agriculture, fortifying both food sovereignty and climate resilience. The global food system is once again under pressure from a fertilizer shock. In early 2025, prices surged sharply—Diammonium Phosphate (DAP) and Triple Superphosphate experiencing the steepest escalation, while nitrogen markets oscillated amid volatile energy costs. “Every fertilizer crunch is more than an input shock—it exposes the fragility of food systems intertwined with energy and mineral geopolitics. For India, with one of the world’s largest subsidy bills, surging global phosphate or nitrogen prices intensify fiscal strain and farmer vulnerability, while export curbs amplify these systemic risks “, stated Renuka Diwan, CEO, BioPrime. “Fertilizer crunches aren’t mere supply shocks—they expose how fragile food systems are when tied to global energy and mineral geopolitics. India’s fiscal and farmer vulnerabilities rise with every price surge. Crises like this urge systemic change: integrating biofertilisers, nutrient enhancers, and biostimulants can boost nutrient use efficiency, improve soil health, reduce subsidy burdens, and give farmers greater resilience and confidence.” - Renuka Diwan, CEO, BioPrime The crisis exposes systemic fragilities. “What we are witnessing is not merely a supply disruption but a systemic unravelling — where global export curbs, volatile energy costs, and our chronic import dependency have converged to expose the fragility of India’s fertiliser architecture. The perversity of artificially low urea prices has distorted nutrient balance, while bureaucratic inertia in logistics and subsidy flows has compounded the malaise. In truth, the crisis is less about scarcity and more about structural myopia,” added Jayanta Chakraborty, Chairman, Agriculture Committee, BCC&I. Ajay Kakra, Leader – Food and Agriculture, GIDAS, Forvis Mazars in India, further explains how fertiliser crunch directly straining farmers and household budgets. “Global fertiliser prices have surged, with the World Bank index up 15 per cent in 2025, while TSP and DAP jumped roughly 43 per cent and 23 per cent , respectively. In India, the landed import price of DAP approached Rs 54,160 per tonne, and urea averaged $546 per tonne internationally. Governments are underwriting enormous costs: India’s fertiliser subsidy outlays remain vast, with multi-thousand crore disbursements in recent years and targeted top-ups for phosphatic and potassic fertilisers of about $860 million in FY 2024–25 “, he analysed. “Bio-fertilizers are vital for resilient, efficient, and sustainable agriculture. They reduce dependence on volatile imports, enhance nutrient uptake, restore soil health, lower chemical use, and cut emissions. With India’s R&D, farmer networks, and supportive policies, rapid scale-up is possible. Immediate, medium, and long-term actions—from emergency imports to local production clusters—can embed bio-inputs at the heart of our nutrient strategy.”  - Jayanta Chakraborty, Chairman, Agriculture Committee, BCC&I Yet the crisis presents an inflection point. “ The fertiliser shortfall of 2025 isn’t just a supply glitch—it’s a wake-up call to the fragility of our food security, shackled to volatile energy markets, import dependencies, and subsidy distortions. Stopgap imports and capacity boosts may calm the panic, but they’re band-aids on a structural wound,” stated Sohit Satyawali, Chief Business Officer - Brand Business, Crystal Crop Protection Limited. “The real fix lies in rethinking our nutrient economy—treating biofertilisers and microbial inoculants as partners, not replacements, that boost efficiency, stabilise yields, and revive soil health. With fertiliser subsidies crossing Rs 2 lakh crore, even modest efficiency gains can unlock massive fiscal and farm-level payoffs. Field results already prove it: biological inputs are cutting chemical use by up to 15 per cent while keeping productivity intact—a rare win for both farmers and the exchequer ,”he opined. Chemical Crunch, Biological Boost The 2025 fertilizer crisis underscores that agricultural inputs are no longer mere commodities—they are instruments of geopolitical strategy. China, a leading producer of phosphatic fertilizers, imposed export restrictions in January 2025 to stabilise domestic prices, immediately affecting India, which imports nearly 90 per cent of its phosphate from China. Shipments were delayed, local stocks depleted, and costs surged, exemplifying “nutrient nationalism.” “Global fertiliser prices have surged, with the World Bank index up 15 per cent in 2025, while TSP and DAP jumped roughly 43 per cent and 23 per cent , respectively. In India, the landed import price of DAP approached Rs 54,160 per tonne, and urea averaged $546 per tonne internationally. Governments are underwriting enormous costs: India’s fertiliser subsidy outlays remain vast, with multi-thousand crore disbursements in recent years and targeted top-ups for phosphatic and potassic fertilisers of about $860 million in FY 2024–25  ’’  - Ajay Kakra, Leader – Food and Agriculture, GIDAS, Forvis Mazars in India Unlike the 2021–22 disruptions, this crisis coincided with climate-linked production shortfalls and high energy prices, intensifying risks for import-dependent economies. Meanwhile, Russia continued selective exports despite sanctions, exploiting regulatory gaps and exposing the fragility of a strategically vital yet concentrated market. The repercussions for Indian farmers during the Kharif season were acute. States including Odisha, Tamil Nadu, Haryana, and Andhra Pradesh reported severe delays in urea, DAP, and NPK blends, with rationed allocations, long queues, and localized shortages threatening yields. Harsh Vardhan Bhagchandka, President, IPL Biologicals , therefore streamlined the root cause of disruption in fertilizer supply chain : “The very foundation of nitrogen production—the energy-guzzling Haber-Bosch process—rests uneasily on natural gas, itself a hostage to the caprices of geopolitics and volatile energy markets. Meanwhile, phosphorus fertilisers such as DAP languish under export curbs from China, and the potash trade remains ensnared in the web of international sanctions. For a nation like India, which imports its entire potash requirement, this confluence of constraints not only imperils soil nutrition but also exacts a heavy toll on our foreign exchange and food sovereignty.” Adding on to the perspective, Vineet Jain, Managing Director , R M Phosphates & Chemicals Pvt Ltd further recommended “Relying exclusively on emergency imports and inflated subsidies is but a palliative, addressing symptoms while leaving the underlying malady untouched. The true panacea lies in weaving biofertilisers and microbial inoculants into the very fabric of India’s nutrient strategy—arming farmers against price shocks, alleviating the fiscal weight of subsidies, and restoring our soils’ enduring fertility.” "At Crystal, we foresaw this transition early and steadily built our GreenAg portfolio, which today includes trusted bio stimulants / nutrition brands like Talwar Zinc, Nutrozen, Marvel, and Calbrozen. These solutions have not only reduced farmers’ dependency on imported fertilizers but have also delivered superior ROI for small and marginal growers—a critical factor in sustaining their livelihoods. What truly differentiates the GreenAg portfolio is the way it is supported by our agronomists, known as ‘Crystal Doctors’, who actively engage with farmers to promote the importance of balanced crop nutrition and healthier soil ecosystems. “ – Sohit Satyawali, Chief Business Officer - Brand Business, Crystal Crop Protection Limited Dr. Suhas Budhe, Legal Advisor, SFIA, rightly terms 2025 fertilizer crisis as a perfect storm of interlinked vulnerabilities, thereby vividly illustrating how geopolitics, energy markets, and import dependence can converge to imperil both agrarian livelihoods and fiscal stability - “China’s reimposition of specialty fertilizer export restrictions from October 2025 disrupted global supply chains, hitting India hardest, given its 80–95 per cent dependence on Chinese imports. Volatile natural gas prices compounded the shock, as energy accounts for 60–80 per cent of nitrogen fertilizer production costs. Domestically, urea stocks plummeted 57 per cent, from 86.4 to 37.2 lakh tonnes, just as the critical Kharif season began. Global DAP prices surged 36 per cent , from $583 to nearly $800 per tonne, sparking queues, protests, and panic buying among smallholders. The crisis also strained government finances, with India’s fertilizer subsidy burden exceeding Rs 1.77 lakh crore.” The 2025 fertilizer disruptions illuminate a cascade of agrarian vulnerabilities. Crop yields hang in the balance when timely and adequate nutrient supply falters, while smallholders grapple with inflated prices and black-market distortions that exacerbate financial distress. “Integrating bio-fertilizers into cropping systems is essential for resilient, sustainable agriculture. These microbial inoculants enhance nutrient solubilization, improve plant uptake, and can supply 25–40 per cent of soil nutrient needs. Combined with precision farming, they strengthen soil structure, support a healthy rhizosphere, and provide a scientifically sound, environmentally friendly, and economically viable path toward decentralized, future-ready nutrient management.” – Harsh Vardhan Bhagchandka, President, IPL Biologicals  Rising fertilizer costs, coupled with expanding crop acreage, further escalated production expenses and fueled wholesale price inflation. Domestic output struggled—urea dropped from 102.1 lt to 93.6 lt, DAP remained steady at 13.7 lt, and NPK complexes edged up only modestly. Declining imports and depleting stocks intensified shortages, with partial relief achieved through substitutions like SSP and 20:20:0:13. Beyond immediate productivity, the crisis imperils food security and underscores the insidious erosion of soil health caused by over-reliance on chemical nitrogen, reminding us that short-term fixes often compromise the foundations of sustainable agriculture. Amid this disruption, biofertilisers such as Rhizobium, Azospirillum, Bacillus megaterium, and phosphate-solubilising bacteria can buffer farmers, reduce chemical dependency, and mitigate exposure to global price volatility. “India’s vulnerability to global supply shocks underscores the imperative of self-reliance in agriculture. “Fertilizer subsidies make inputs affordable for farmers but can inadvertently curb innovation in the industry. Fixed pricing and high chemical fertilizer support discourage investment in advanced formulations and slow adoption of organic and biological inputs. Globally, combining chemical fertilizers with microbes, biostimulants, and bioactive components enhances nutrient efficiency and soil health. Policy frameworks should incentivize sustainable, incremental innovation to create this synergy while reducing dependence on synthetic inputs.” – Shanmugam Sambanthan, Head-Agriculture, Middle East, South Asia and Africa, Novonesis By indigenising the production of chelated micronutrients, high-density NPKs, and crop-specific formulations, we reduce import dependence, stabilise prices for farmers, and conserve precious foreign exchange ,’’ opined Dr. Rahul Mirchandani, Chairman, Aries Agro Limited. “Our Make In India and import substitution initiatives have cut imported raw materials from 51 per cent in 2018‑19 to 18 per cent in 2024‑25. Localised manufacturing, R&D, and raw material sourcing are not mere operational choices—they are instruments of Atmanirbharta, shielding our agrarian economy from the vicissitudes of international markets,” he added. Toward a New Nutrient Paradigm Biosolutions are indeed making inroads among Indian farmers, yet their adoption remains embryonic. “Worth $ 100–127.5 million in India and growing 8–11 per cent annually, they can boost yields 10–40 per cent when used alongside chemical fertilisers “, opined Kakra. “ Yet adoption is limited—less than 5 per cent of farmers account for most usage. Scaling biologicals demands robust policy support: large field trials, quality certification, and strengthened extension services. Done right, they can curb import dependence, stretch subsidy funds, and restore long-term soil health,” he recommended. “Relying solely on emergency imports and higher subsidies is like treating symptoms without curing the disease. The real solution lies in integrating biofertilisers and microbial inoculants into the core of India’s nutrient strategy. These biological solutions can buffer farmers from future price shocks, lower the nation’s subsidy burden, and nurture soils for long-term fertility. ” – Vineet Jain, Managing Director , R M Phosphates & Chemicals Pvt Ltd  For India to realise the full promise of these biological inputs, a target of 50 per cent coverage across all cultivable land is imperative. Achieving such scale through standalone farmer adoption, however, would be protracted, particularly given the fragmented mosaic of India’s smallholder agriculture.  Infact, India is uniquely positioned to lead this transition. Existing initiatives—the National Mission on Natural Farming, PM-PRANAM, and the Soil Health Card program—provide institutional scaffolding for mainstreaming microbial inputs. “Biofertilisers are a potent alternative: a $2.5–2.8 billion global market growing 12–18 per cent annually. Brazil sees 15–30 per cent yield gains with 50 per cent less nitrogen; India reports 15–20 per cent gains with 30 per cent nitrogen reduction ”, advocated Dr. Buddhe . “They cost 30–50 per cent less than synthetics, improve soil health, sequester 0.5–1 t C/ha annually, cut emissions, and create sustainable nutrient cycles via nitrogen-fixing and phosphate-solubilising microbes,” he stated. “Biofertilizers are a compelling alternative, with the global market projected to grow 12–18 per cent annually. Brazil’s 80 per cent adoption boosts yields 15–30 per cent while cutting nitrogen use by half; Indian trials show 15–20 per cent gains with 30 per cent nitrogen reduction. Cost-effective, climate-positive, and soil-friendly, biofertilizers can transform nutrient cycles. Coordinated policy, farmer education, and public-private partnerships can build resilience and secure sustainable food systems.” – Dr. Suhas Budhe, Legal Advisor, Soluble Fertilizers Industry Association (SFIA) While examining the drivers of the crisis, its local manifestations in India Shanmugam Sambanthan, Head-Agriculture, Middle East, South Asia and Africa, Novonesis, quantified the opportunity to integrate biofertilisers into new- age medium- and long-term nutrient strategies. “The global fertilizer paradigm is evolving: biologicals—microbes, bioactives, biostimulants such as seaweed extracts and humic acids—are increasingly being woven into conventional formulations to enhance efficiency and rejuvenate soils. Biofertilisers are not adversaries of chemical fertilizers; they are synergistic allies, amplifying natural soil processes while chemicals deliver immediate nutrient support. Integrating these during production offers a bespoke, sustainable approach, gradually curbing synthetic dependence and tailoring nutrients to specific crops and agroclimatic conditions ,” he opined. “The challenge ahead is not just shielding Indian agriculture from external shocks, but integrating sustainable, Made-in-India solutions like high-density NPKs, crop-targeted fertilizers, and biostimulants into mainstream nutrient management. Combined with a strong domestic manufacturing base and scalable biological solutions, India can secure inputs, reduce subsidy burdens, and build the foundation for climate-positive agriculture. Aries Agro is proud to lead this journey.” - Dr. Rahul Mirchandani, Chairman, Aries Agro Limited Fertilizer manufacturers are therefore, evolving beyond standard NPK formulations, designing products tailored to the specific nutritional needs of high-value crops. Encouraging them to integrate biosolutions—such as microbes (biofertilisers), enzymes, and biostimulants like cell-free microbials, protein hydrolysates, and amino acids—into chemical fertilizers during production, supported through subsidies and capacity-building, can provide farmers with the combined benefits of biological and chemical inputs. The 2025 crisis underscores that fertilizers are no longer mere chemical commodities but instruments of biological intelligence. In the words of Renuka, “It is a call to embed resilience into the very fabric of agricultural systems. By combining chemical inputs with next-generation biologicals, India and the world can move toward nutrient security that is cost-efficient, climate-positive, and farmer-centered. We are not seeking replacement strategies but a total rebalancing—one that diversifies risk, safeguards productivity, and aligns agriculture with global sustainability goals.” ---------- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3368/from-feed-grain-to-functional-food-brazil-turns-sorghum-into-gut-boosting-health-drink.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3368/from-feed-grain-to-functional-food-brazil-turns-sorghum-into-gut-boosting-health-drink.html Mon, 03 Nov 2025 13:46:23 +0530 In an exclusive conversation with AgroSpectrum, Professor Hercia Stampini Duarte Martino and her research team at the Federal University of Viçosa (UFV) detailed their pioneering work on sorghum-based synbiotic beverages developed in collaboration with Embrapa and the University of Wisconsin–Madison. The innovation combines whole-grain sorghum with Lacticaseibacillus paracasei to deliver metabolic benefits linked to obesity reduction, improved lipid profiles, and enhanced gut microbiota balance. The researchers emphasized strong translational potential for Brazil, noting the product’s alignment with public-health priorities and suitability for vegan and lactose-intolerant consumers. They highlighted commercialization opportunities within the fast-growing global plant-based market, while underscoring the need for broader consumer education and regulatory validation. Looking ahead, the team is advancing larger clinical studies, new probiotic strains, and metagenomic analyses to scale functional sorghum innovation from lab to marketplace. Innovation & Rationale Your team developed extruded whole-grain sorghum beverages with and without Lacticaseibacillus paracasei. What motivated Embrapa to explore non-dairy, plant-based synbiotic products, and how do they address current public health challenges related to obesity and metabolic health in Brazil ? The motivation was to address two strategic demands: first, to expand food alternatives for vegan and lactose-intolerant consumers seeking functional plant-based options; and second, to develop solutions utilizing Brazilian-adapted crops like sorghum, with relevant nutritional potential. The whole-grain sorghum provides dietary fibers, resistant starch, and phenolic compounds that modulate gut microbiota and aid in glycemic control. By combining it with the probiotic Lacticaseibacillus paracasei, we created a synbiotic product with a combined effect on satiety, insulin sensitivity, and low-grade inflammation. This innovation is aligned with obesity management policies, offering an accessible, sustainable, and culturally appropriate dietary intervention for the Brazilian population. Nutritional & Functional Insights The study highlights high levels of resistant starch, phenolic compounds, and antioxidants in the BRS 305 sorghum beverage. How do these bioactive compounds mechanistically contribute to improvements in visceral fat, lipid profiles, and overall cardiovascular risk markers, such as Castelli index I ? These components act via complementary mechanisms. Resistant Starch reaches the colon, where it is fermented into Short-Chain Fatty Acids (SCFAs) like butyrate and propionate. These metabolites improve insulin sensitivity, stimulate satiety hormones, reduce inflammation, and decrease visceral fat accumulation. Phenolic compounds and antioxidants protect against oxidative stress and the oxidation of LDL-cholesterol, a key factor in atherogenesis. This combination of actions favors the reduction of total cholesterol and LDL-c and can contribute to increased HDL functionality, resulting in a better total cholesterol/HDL-cholesterol ratio (Castelli Index I), a direct indicator of lower cardiovascular risk. Probiotic Synergy Could you elaborate on the interplay between the probiotic and the sorghum matrix, particularly how sorghum nutrients enhance probiotic viability and short-chain fatty acid production? Sorghum provides dietary fibers, resistant starch, and micronutrients that function as prebiotic substrates for Lacticaseibacillus paracasei and the resident microbiota. This nutritional environment favors the viability of probiotic during storage and passage through the gastrointestinal tract. The fermentation of these fibers intensifies the production of SCFAs, which potentiate the beneficial intestinal and metabolic effects. The result is a true synbiotic relationship: the sorghum protects and feeds the probiotic, and the probiotic maximizes the beneficial conversion of fermentable compounds naturally presents in the grain matrix. Clinical & Public Health Implications Given that this was a pilot study with 30 overweight and obese adults, how do you envision scaling these findings to broader populations? What role could sorghum-based synbiotic beverages play in national dietary guidelines or obesity prevention programs? The pilot study demonstrated safety and positive outcomes in overweight and obese individuals, although the sample size was limited. We are currently analyzing data from a subsequent study conducted with a larger number of individuals with overweight and obesity in order to validate the pilot findings. The next steps will likely involve larger, multicenter clinical trials that include more diverse population groups and long-term follow-up with robust clinical and metabolic endpoints. If the benefits are confirmed, sorghum-based synbiotic beverages could be incorporated into national healthy eating guidelines and implemented in schools, primary healthcare settings within the Brazilian Unified Health System (SUS), and obesity prevention initiatives, given that this technology is accessible, affordable, and readily scalable throughout Brazil. Market & Consumer Adoption Plant-based, non-dairy probiotics are gaining traction globally. From Embrapa’s perspective, what are the key opportunities and challenges for commercializing these sorghum beverages in Brazil and internationally, especially for vegan and lactose-intolerant populations? Opportunities are clear: the continuous growth of the plant-based market, driven by vegans, lactose-intolerant individuals, and health-conscious consumers. Sorghum adds nutritional value and sustainability. Challenges include ensuring sensory acceptance (taste/texture), achieving probiotic stability in non-dairy matrices, navigating functional claim regulations, and needing educational campaigns, as sorghum is still unfamiliar to many Brazilian consumers. Robust scientific proof and sustainability certifications can facilitate access to the international functional food market. Future Research & Technological Horizons Looking ahead, what are the next steps for Embrapa in optimizing sorghum-based functional foods? Are there plans to explore longer-term interventions, other probiotic strains, or potential impacts on gut microbiota diversity and metabolic health outcomes? Research will advance on several fronts: longer and multi-center clinical studies to assess sustained effects on weight control, lipids, and insulin. We will also explore new probiotic strains and technologies like microencapsulation to maximize bioactive compounds and probiotic viability. The metagenomic and metabolomic analyses will deepen the understanding of how the beverage modulates the gut microbiota diversity and function, including the role of the mycobiota, and its direct relation to the observed metabolic effects. Sustainability & Crop Valorization Sorghum is underutilized in Brazil for human consumption. How does this research contribute to crop valorization, climate-resilient agriculture, and the development of functional foods that are both nutritionally and environmentally sustainable? By developing a high-value product for human consumption, we are valorizing sorghum and creating a new market beyond animal feed, which is crucial for national food security. Sorghum is a drought-resistant and water-efficient crop, strengthening agricultural systems resilient to climate change. The use of whole-grain maximizes the uptake of dietary fibers and micronutrients while reducing the environmental footprint compared to animal-based inputs. This approach aligns with United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): SDG 2 – Zero Hunger, SDG 3 – Good Health and Well-being, SDG 8 – Decent Work and Economic Growth, SDG 12 – Responsible Consumption and Production, SDG 13 – Climate Action and SDG 15 – Life on Land; linking environmental sustainability, public health, and economic development. Translational Potential Beyond clinical markers, do you see potential for these beverages in sports nutrition, elderly care, or other specialized dietary applications? How might Embrapa collaborate with the private sector to accelerate innovation in plant-based functional foods? The product has potential in sports nutrition, offering gradual-release energy and recovery support via SCFAs, as well as in elderly care, aiding intestinal health and reducing chronic inflammation. It is also applicable in specific clinical diets requiring prebiotics and probiotics. To accelerate innovation in plant-based functional foods, Embrapa seeks private sector partnerships for technology licensing, industrial scale-up, functional certification, and sensory acceptance studies. Collaboration through Research and Development (R&D) consortia and technology transfer agreements is essential to ensure that scientific advances are effectively translated into accessible, commercially viable consumer products. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3361/coral-reefs-vs-climate-chaos-dr-jenni-brandon-on-race-to-save-earths-underwater-cities.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3361/coral-reefs-vs-climate-chaos-dr-jenni-brandon-on-race-to-save-earths-underwater-cities.html Fri, 31 Oct 2025 13:30:22 +0530 In an exclusive interview with AgroSpectrum, Dr. Jenni Brandon, CEO and Sustainability Consultant at Wild Beacon Consulting, reveals how coral reefs marshal an arsenal of biological ingenuity — from genetically diverse lineages to symbiont-swapping survival strategies — to endure the escalating tyranny of warming and acidifying oceans. She argues that restoration must be rooted not in cosmetic transplantation but in evolutionary prudence, selecting morphologies and genotypes most equipped for tomorrow’s oceans and leveraging naturally resilient habitats such as upwelling zones. Dr. Brandon spotlights the reefs’ macroeconomic indispensability: they are coastal sentinels, food-system pillars, and tourism engines whose erosion could destabilize livelihoods and national balance sheets alike. Although reefs are not classical blue-carbon sinks, she underscores their essential role in safeguarding carbon-rich ecosystems — a rationale for scaling blue bonds and debt-for-nature swaps that yoke biodiversity protection to investible climate outcomes. With the advent of AI-assisted surveillance, satellite foresight and rapid eDNA diagnostics, she concludes, humanity now possesses the tools to pre-empt catastrophe — so long as governance frameworks unite scientific precision, local stewardship, and uncompromising urgency. I. Reef Resilience and Climate Dynamics Mechanisms of Resilience: With rising sea surface temperatures and ocean acidification, what are the most decisive biological and ecological mechanisms that enable certain coral species or reef systems to withstand climate stress, and how can this inform targeted conservation strategies? More resilient corals have a few ecological commonalities, including living in deeper, colder waters, but also living in more variable waters, where they have become more resilient to changing temperatures than those in stable environments. Biologically, certain genetic strains seem to be more resilient, as well as the corals with more diverse genetic makeup. If you have higher genetic diversity, you are more likely to have some strains survive a bleaching event. Certain morphologies also seem to survive better, like in Papua New Guinea, where big boulder-shaped corals have taken over reefs compared to more fragile branching corals that are more sensitive to ocean acidification. Then there are also the coral-algae symbionts, where corals with more heat-resistant symbiotic algae survive better, and some corals will actually swap out their symbiotic algae for more heat-resistant algae in a warming event. Adaptive Management under Uncertainty: Given the high variability of reef responses across regions, how should policymakers and investors design adaptive, evidence-based interventions that balance short-term protection with long-term ecosystem integrity? Some intervention approaches include replanting coral outcroppings, and this should be done thinking about the morphology, symbiotic algae community, and genetic diversity of those corals. Too many of the same corals replanted will not add to the genetic diversity and could all be wiped out in a marine heat wave. Similarly, replanting corals in areas of upwelling may lead to those corals becoming more resilient and lead to more long-term resiliency. II. Economics, Valuation, and Climate Finance Monetizing Reef Resilience: Coral ecosystems provide critical services—fisheries, tourism, and coastal protection. How can we rigorously quantify these benefits in economic terms to attract private investment and integrate reef conservation into ESG portfolios? I'm not an economist, so I can't definitively answer that. But you have to think of the jobs created not just by the fishing vessels themselves, but the seafood processing plants, and the seafood markets and seafood restaurants. The tourism jobs that would disappear if there was no healthy coral reef to visit (hotels, restaurants, SCUBA boats, beach shops, etc). Also, the coastal protections that a coral reef provides, including stopping storm surge, protecting during hurricanes, fighting erosion, being nursery habitat for those fisheries. It goes on and on. Florida values their coral reefs at a value of $8.5 billion, when you start to add all those pieces together. Blue Carbon and Market Mechanisms: What are the methodological and regulatory challenges of incorporating coral reefs into carbon markets or nature-based solutions financing, and how can these frameworks ensure both ecological fidelity and investor confidence? Coral reefs are not direct blue carbon sinks themselves, because the act of calcification releases CO2. But they help protect other blue carbon ecosystems like seagrass from erosion or storm surge, so they are part of the blue carbon ecosystem. But to be part of the carbon market, there would need to be significant research on the MRV, or measurement, reporting, and verification, of exactly where the carbon goes in a reef system and how permanently it is sequestered, if at all. That's not to say that coral reefs aren't a nature-based solution, for all the ecosystem services I mentioned above. They are, and financing coral reef and restoration for those ecosystem services makes a lot of sense for both ecological and economic reasons. III. Cross-Sector Governance and Strategic Collaboration Private-Public Synergy: How should corporations, philanthropic organizations, and governments strategically co-invest in reef resilience to generate measurable climate, biodiversity, and economic impact simultaneously? There are debt instruments like blue bonds that are being created where a government, development bank, or corporation, issues a bond that is specifically designed for projects that benefit the ocean and the blue economy. These can be used for things like coral reef restoration, or preventing water pollution from entering the ocean and polluting reefs, or establishing an MPA, or making a fishery more sustainable. These often include debt-for-nature swaps, where a country's foreign debt is reduced in exchange for investing in conservation projects. These bonds are new but have been incredibly successful both economically and for the climate. IV. Innovation and Forward-Looking Insights Technology-Enabled Monitoring and Intervention: Emerging tools—AI-driven reef health analytics, satellite imaging, and environmental DNA—offer unprecedented monitoring precision. How can these technologies be integrated into decision-making pipelines to optimize intervention timing, prioritize restoration, and de-risk investments in reef resilience? These tools are de-risking some of the decisions about where and when to focus restoration efforts. They are allowing scientists to be more precise in replanting efforts, but also to see a bleaching event coming earlier so they can react quicker. They are taking the guesswork out of some of this research and allowing scientists to not spend so many manhours underwater surveying the reef, but instead have eyes on what's going on nearly 24/7. By allowing scientists to see what's going on at all times, that allows them to make more informed, quicker, restoration and policy decisions. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3354/alexei-beltyukov-on-flexiforming-future-inside-unifuels-mission-to-scale-sustainable-aviation-fuel.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3354/alexei-beltyukov-on-flexiforming-future-inside-unifuels-mission-to-scale-sustainable-aviation-fuel.html Thu, 30 Oct 2025 17:29:49 +0530 In an exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Alexei Beltyukov, CEO and Co-founder of Universal Fuel Technologies (Unifuel), elucidates how the company’s proprietary Flexiforming process transcends the constraints of conventional waste-oil-based biofuels, converting alcohols and low-value refinery byproducts into truly drop-in Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF). By delivering the elusive aromatic fraction required for jet engine performance — something HEFA and Fischer–Tropsch routes cannot independently supply — Unifuel simultaneously augments yield and slashes both energy and hydrogen inputs. Beltyukov underscores that Flexiforming’s modularity and compatibility with existing refineries and ethanol facilities offer a capital-efficient scale-up pathway at a time when the SAF markets are beleaguered by feedstock scarcity and punishing production costs. Policy acceleration toward 100 per cent synthetic SAF approval, coupled with long-term airline offtake agreements, he argues, will unlock the confidence necessary for global deployment. Ultimately, Unifuel positions itself not as a solitary panacea but as a catalytic enabler of a commercially viable, climate-positive aviation future, where complementary pathways collaborate to maximise every molecule of renewable carbon. I. Technology & Production From Waste to Jet Fuel: Can you explain the core technology behind Unifuel’s conversion of waste oils and fats into SAF, and what differentiates it from conventional biofuel pathways? Unifuel doesn't directly convert waste oils and fats into SAF. Rather, our Flexiforming technology complements existing processes that do. We convert alcohols like ethanol and methanol into high-quality SAF, and we upgrade the low-value byproducts—naphtha and LPG—from Hydroprocessed Esthers and Fatty Acids (HEFA) and Fischer-Tropsch (FT) processes that use waste oils and fats. The key differentiator is our single-step, all-gas phase reaction using a proprietary catalyst. This design reduces energy consumption by 75 per cent and hydrogen requirements by 33 per cent compared to alternative ethanol-to-jet processes, positioning our technology at approximately half the cost. Additionally, we produce aromatic SAF components that HEFA and Fischer-Tropsch cannot, which are essential for jet engine performance and achieving true drop-in capability. Performance and Sustainability: How do Unifuel’s SAF products perform in terms of energy density, combustion efficiency, and lifecycle carbon intensity compared to fossil-based jet fuels? Flexiforming produces SAF that is chemically comparable to conventional jet fuel, containing the 8-25 per cent aromatics that today's aircraft engines require. Our SAF has undergone comprehensive testing at Washington State University's Bioproducts, Sciences, and Engineering Lab—the world-leading authority on SAF research—and has been accepted into the ASTM D4054 Clearinghouse for qualification. This acceptance demonstrates that our fuel meets strict quality and safety criteria and shows strong potential for completing the ASTM qualification process successfully. In terms of lifecycle carbon intensity, depending on the specific chemical pathway, our energy-efficient process has a carbon intensity 10-31 per cent that of the incoming feedstock—a significant reduction beyond the inherent benefits of using renewable feedstocks. II. Scaling Challenges Feedstock Constraints: Waste oils and fats are finite and geographically dispersed. What strategies is Unifuel pursuing to secure a consistent, scalable feedstock supply, and how do logistics impact production economics? Rather than competing for limited HEFA feedstocks, our strategy is to make the best of what’s available and diversify. For example, for HEFA—indeed, a feed-limited pathway to SAF—Flexiforming can convert their low-value byproduct, naphtha, into the aromatic component of SAF. Apart from making the product a potentially fully synthetic fungible jet fuel (subject to ASTM approvals), this produces 20 per cent more SAF from the same amount of feedstock. Flexiforming works with any alcohol or ether, renewable naphthas, and LPG. This versatility allows plant operators to adapt to feedstock availability and pricing fluctuations. For ethanol specifically, we see significant opportunity. The U.S. already produces billions of gallons of ethanol annually for gasoline blending. As electric vehicles replace gasoline-powered cars, this ethanol can be redirected to jet fuel production without impacting food production or requiring new agricultural investment. Flexiforming offers ethanol plant operators an economically viable ethanol-to-jet pathway, 50 per cent less expensive than existing ETJ options. Refinery and Conversion Economics: What are the key technical and economic bottlenecks in scaling SAF production from laboratory or pilot-scale to commercial refinery operations, and how is Unifuel addressing them ? The primary bottlenecks are cost (SAF currently costs 2 to 4 times more than conventional jet fuel) and feedstock limitations. Our single-reactor design dramatically reduces capital and operational costs. Flexiforming is also designed for scalable deployment at various sizes, from small bolt-on units for Fischer-Tropsch plants to large refinery-scale installations. This flexibility allows producers to match their investment to their specific circumstances rather than requiring massive upfront capital. Critically, we integrate with existing infrastructure, minimizing deployment costs and accelerating time to market. Our successful 2024 five-month pilot campaign demonstrates we've moved beyond laboratory concepts closer to commercially proven, reproducible technology. III. Policy & Market Dynamics Regulatory Alignment: How do government incentives, blending mandates, and carbon credit schemes influence SAF adoption, and where do you see regulatory gaps that need urgent attention to accelerate deployment ? Similar to how EVs initially depended on government incentives before becoming mainstream, SAF needs policy support to offset the current cost premium and give producers confidence to invest.The next step we are awaiting in the regulatory area is the adoption of a standard for 100 per cent drop-in, fully synthetic SAF. Currently, ASTM standards allow most SAF to be blended with conventional jet fuel up to 50 per cent . The industry anticipates approval for 100 per cent synthetic SAF by the end of 2026, but this requires addressing the aromatics requirement—something HEFA and Fischer-Tropsch alone cannot provide. Technologies that can produce aromatic SAF components should receive accelerated regulatory review and support, as they're essential for eliminating the need for continued blending with fossil fuels. Global Market Readiness: With airlines increasingly committing to SAF targets, what is your perspective on the readiness of global supply chains and airport infrastructure to handle large-scale SAF integration? Infrastructure is largely in place to support greater use of SAF, since it is a “drop-in” replacement that works with today’s aircraft. Once the fully synthetic SAF standard is adopted, common-carrier pipelines and all other infrastructure will be accessible to SAF. The real challenge is scaling production to meet growing demand. SAF currently represents less than 1 per cent of global jet fuel consumption, and closing that gap will depend on both technologies that make existing production pathways more efficient and cost-effective, as well as the regulatory approach. A lot of capacity and feedstock that can be used to make SAF are presently targeting renewable diesel. This is a partial result of how the tax incentives are set up, and also of the fact that when making SAF, the producers inevitably make significant quantities of naphtha - a byproduct that, in the absence of Flexiforming, has a relatively low value. Flexiforming helps in exactly that way. By upgrading low-value byproducts such as naphtha and LPG into additional SAF, our technology enables producers to generate more fuel from the same feedstock. This increases total output while improving project economics, which in turn helps airlines and fuel suppliers meet their sustainability commitments more quickly and affordably. IV. Strategic Outlook Investment and Partnership Models: What role do strategic airline partnerships, venture capital, and private equity play in enabling SAF scale-up, and what frameworks have you found most effective for attracting long-term investment? Strategic partnerships are critical, especially between technology providers, fuel producers, and airlines. Airlines’ long-term offtake agreements provide the demand certainty investors look for, while venture and private equity partners can fund early deployment. Unifuel’s model is based on technology licensing rather than direct fuel production, which makes scaling faster and more capital-efficient. Our customers can integrate Flexiforming into their existing plants with relatively low CapEx, creating a more distributed, resilient SAF supply network. This model appeals to investors because it allows them to participate across multiple facilities and feedstocks, reducing risk while accelerating market penetration. Beyond Waste Oils: As SAF demand grows, how is Unifuel preparing for feedstock diversification — for example, algae, municipal waste, or other renewable sources — and what technical or economic hurdles remain in that transition ? Feedstock diversification is at the heart of Flexiforming’s value proposition. We can already process any naphtha, alcohol or ether, so as new pathways to these feeds emerge—from algae, cellulosic sources, or other biomass—we can potentially integrate them. For municipal and agricultural waste, we complement Fischer-Tropsch processing. By upgrading FT's naphtha and LPG byproducts into aromatic SAF, we can increase plant revenue by 10-20 per cent, making waste-to-SAF projects more financially viable. The main challenge is not chemistry, but logistics and preprocessing costs. That’s why our technology can be deployed at different scales, even near the source of biomass or waste conversion. By enabling modular, regional SAF production, Flexiforming helps producers reduce transportation costs and make better use of local renewable resources. Vision for Net-Zero Aviation: Looking ahead 5–10 years, how do you see Unifuel contributing to a commercially viable, climate-positive aviation sector, and what are the key milestones the industry must hit to achieve that vision? We envision three major use cases: bolt-ons to Fischer-Tropsch and HEFA plants processing waste feedstocks; partnerships with ethanol plants transitioning from selling ethanol for gasoline blending to SAF; and retrofitting existing oil refineries for SAF production. The key industry milestones include ASTM approval for 100 per cent drop-in synthetic SAF by end of 2026; achieving economic parity or near-parity with conventional jet fuel through technology improvements and policy support; and successfully diversifying beyond limited HEFA feedstocks. Our goal is for Flexiforming to become a mainstream enabling technology—recognizing that no single pathway will meet 100 per cent of demand, but that complementary technologies working together can maximize resource utilization and make sustainable aviation the norm rather than the exception. ---- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3353/reefs-as-climate-infrastructure-case-for-treating-coral-systems-like-coastal-assets.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3353/reefs-as-climate-infrastructure-case-for-treating-coral-systems-like-coastal-assets.html Mon, 27 Oct 2025 16:38:41 +0530 he traditional logic of reef conservation—protect the habitat, and the habitat will recover—is breaking down under the realities of a warming ocean. MPAs still matter, but they are being outpaced by global environmental change that local policies cannot contain. The future of coral reefs will depend on dynamic, data-driven management, active restoration, and financial mechanisms that treat reef health as essential climate-resilience infrastructure. In this new era, the question is not whether reefs can be protected—but how fast we can redesign the systems meant to save them. For decades, the global conservation community placed its faith in marine protected areas (MPAs) as the primary shield for coral reef ecosystems. The theory was simple: Designate zones where fishing is curtailed, run-off is controlled, and coastal development is managed—and healthy coral systems will recover, thrive, and resist shocks. However, the fundamental logic of that model is now under grave pressure. As marine heatwaves grow in frequency, intensity and duration, and ocean chemistry shifts with acidification, the assumption that protection from local threats alone can ensure reef survival has proven increasingly inadequate. “The speed of climate change is pushing coral reefs beyond the environmental boundaries they evolved to survive in. A reef functions much like an underwater city—dense, highly organized, and full of interdependent life. Corals rely on a narrow band of temperatures and water chemistry, and when waters warm, they expel their symbiotic algae, zooxanthellae, which provide most of their energy. Without that partnership, corals begin to starve, and pollution or disease can accelerate the decline. When corals die, the reef’s architecture breaks down, fish lose habitat, invertebrates lose food, and the ecosystem shifts into a simpler state with far less ecological function and economic value. Reef restoration is advancing, from coral nurseries to selective breeding and assisted evolution. Some coral–algae partnerships show natural heat tolerance, and herbivore-rich reefs in the South Pacific have demonstrated surprising capacity to rebound. But the communities that return are not the same, and we are only beginning to understand the implications for fisheries, tourism, and coastal protection.” --- Camille Gaynus, Chief Science Officer, BIMS (Black in Marine Science) Inside key reef systems—from the vast expanse of Australia’s Great Barrier Reef to the unique ecosystems of the Red Sea and the island-state reefs of the Seychelles—this truth is becoming ever more apparent. MPAs remain essential, but they are no longer sufficient. In this new era, reef resilience demands a fundamentally re-engineered approach: One that blends dynamic management, cutting-edge restoration, climate-smart zoning, real-time monitoring, and financial innovation. Equally, coral reef ecosystems must be woven into the climate-finance architecture—not simply as biodiversity assets, but as resilience infrastructure for coastal societies. This article examines three intertwined themes. First, the limitations of the traditional MPA model in a climate-changed ocean. Second, the emergence of what we might call “climate-smart MPAs” that attempt to address the new stress regime. Third, the critical gap in global finance: reefs are largely excluded from blue-carbon frameworks despite their enormous value, and that must change if scaled resilience is to be achieved. Why MPAs Are Failing in the Face of Global Stressors For much of the late twentieth and early twenty-first century, marine protected areas (MPAs) stood at the center of global coral reef conservation strategy. The theory behind them was straightforward: if reefs were shielded from local, human-driven pressures, their natural ecological resilience would give them the capacity to withstand shocks and regenerate over time. The traditional MPA model focused on what were understood as the primary drivers of degradation: unsustainable and destructive fishing practices, nutrient and sediment runoff from agriculture and coastal development, and physical damage from tourism or dredging. In many cases, this approach worked. Where MPAs were institutionally strong—backed by enforcement, ecological monitoring, and community participation—indicators such as fish biomass, herbivore abundance, and coral recruitment showed measurable improvement. These reefs, free from chronic local stress, were able to maintain healthier ecological structure and clearer competitive balances, particularly the crucial balance between corals and macro-algae. In this sense, MPAs succeeded in delivering what they were designed to do. " Coral reefs are one of the ecosystems that have been most devastated by climate range, with 14 per cent of the world's coral dying from 2009 to 2018. Climate change has multiple impacts on coral reefs, including sea level rise, that brings sedimentation, stronger and more frequent storms that destroy reefs, changing precipitation patterns that bring increased runoff, freshwater and land pollutants, often causing algal blooms or infectious diseases, and altered ocean currents that can affect coral larval dispersal. But the biggest effects of climate change on coral reefs are increased ocean acidification and ocean warming, which lead to coral bleaching events.  However corals are resilient. Although right now 80 per cent + of world corals are in a mass bleaching event because the ocean is so warm, that does not mean that all of those corals are going to die. It means those corals are incredibly stressed, and their zooxanthellae (the photosynthetic organisms that live inside corals and give them food) have left the corals, leaving them vulnerable to starvation and disease. But when the temperature goes down and the bleaching event is over, the zooxanthellae can return. The coral can survive. There are also pockets of coral that are surviving and adapting to these very hot temperatures, like in the Red Sea, where corals seem to be evolving to the hotter waters. And corals near cold upwelling waters from the deep seem to be surviving and then dispersing to farther reefs after heat wave events. Corals are in an incredibly vulnerable spot right now, but they are not doomed. " -- Jenni Brandon, PhD, Science and Sustainability Consultant, Wild Beacon Consulting Yet in the past decade, the conservation narrative has shifted dramatically. The stressors now driving coral reef decline are no longer predominantly local; they are global, atmospheric, and systemic. Marine heatwaves have emerged as the most immediate and widespread threat. As oceans warm, corals expel the symbiotic algae (zooxanthellae) that give them both color and metabolic energy. The result is bleaching—an outwardly visible symptom of profound physiological stress. Where heatwaves were once rare, today they are more frequent, more intense, and longer in duration, leaving insufficient time for reefs to recover between events. Ocean chemistry has also begun to turn against corals. As the ocean absorbs increasing amounts of atmospheric CO₂, its pH gradually drops. This process of acidification diminishes the availability of aragonite, a mineral corals need to build their calcium-carbonate skeletons. Even corals that survive bleaching events may struggle to rebuild structure, weakening reefs in the long term and reducing their capacity to provide habitat and shoreline protection. “Mauritius has experienced multiple mass bleaching events over the past three decades, each revealing both vulnerability and resilience within its reef systems. The first major bleaching in 1998, during an exceptionally strong El Niño, caused widespread stress but relatively low coral mortality compared to neighboring Seychelles and Maldives. Local cooling from cyclonic activity helped buffer the reefs, though shallow, poorly flushed lagoons were significantly affected. Subsequent surveys in 2005 showed coral cover below 5 per cent at many sites, with nutrient pollution, algal overgrowth, and crown-of-thorns starfish driving further decline. However, some locations like Bel Ombre retained high coral cover and species diversity, illustrating the importance of site-specific conditions and local management. During the global bleaching of 2016, Mauritius again saw widespread bleaching but limited mortality at monitored sites. Factors such as water circulation, herbivore populations, and depth played key roles in recovery potential. The most recent 2024 bleaching event underscores growing pressure, with regional data showing high rates of bleaching and mortality across the Western Indian Ocean. While comprehensive national assessments remain limited, these recurring events highlight the urgent need for sustained monitoring, improved wastewater management, reef restoration, and climate-adaptive marine protection strategies.” --- Anusha Devi Nawoor, PhD - Environmental Scientist, Tunley Environmental Case studies from around the world echo this conclusion. The Great Barrier Reef, widely considered the gold standard of marine protection and monitoring, has suffered multiple mass-bleaching events in the past decade and recently recorded its worst coral loss in nearly four decades. These outcomes occurred despite comprehensive zoning systems, restrictions on fishing, and sustained management investment. In the Red Sea, which has been viewed as a natural thermal refugia due to its unusually warm baseline conditions and the presence of heat-tolerant coral lineages, reefs are now beginning to show signs of climate-linked stress. The message here is not that the Red Sea is “safe,” but that even systems with higher inherent resistance face limits in a rapidly warming ocean. In the Seychelles, long held up as a model for island-state marine governance, reef systems remain deeply vulnerable to bleaching and acidification despite sustained conservation commitments and the establishment of extensive MPAs. These national efforts have strengthened governance, protected fisheries, and improved local ecological conditions—yet none of these interventions can halt the rise in sea temperature or shift the chemistry of the global ocean. Taken together, the pattern is undeniable. The MPA remains a critical conservation tool, but it is no longer sufficient as the foundation of reef survival strategy. It can control fishing pressure and pollution; it cannot control heat. It can restore ecological function; it cannot rewrite the physics of ocean-atmosphere carbon exchange. The challenge now is not to abandon MPAs, but to rethink what they are for, how they operate, and how they integrate into broader climate adaptation frameworks. The era of “protection alone” has ended. The era of “protection plus climate-resilience intervention” must begin. Emergence of Climate-Smart MPAs If the traditional model falters, what does the next generation of reef protection look like? Conservation practitioners, marine scientists and policy innovators are converging on a new paradigm we might call “climate-smart MPAs.” These have several defining features. First, they adopt dynamic zoning and adaptive management rather than fixed boundaries and static rules. In a warming, acidifying ocean, it makes sense to manage based on real-time risk: closing regions temporarily during heatwave projections, prioritizing coral refuges, relocating species to cooler or deeper waters when viable. In essence, the MPA becomes a living, adaptive system, not a static map overlay. Second, they integrate active resilience-reinforcement: restoration at scale, assisted evolution (breeding heat-tolerant coral strains), microbiome manipulation, artificial reef structures and shading technologies. In this model the MPA is not only a “do not touch” zone—it is a hub of intervention. Given the intensity of climate stress, passive protection alone is insufficient. Active adaptation is required. Restoration practitioners are now embedding interventions inside MPA frameworks to complement protection with adaptation. Third, monitoring and technology become central. Climate-smart MPAs invest in satellite–drone–autonomous vehicle systems, AI image-analysis, heat-anomaly forecasting and rapid response capacity. This allows managers to anticipate threat windows, execute intervention strategies, and adapt governance accordingly. Without such capability, MPA management risks being reactive rather than proactive. Fourth—and perhaps most critically—these next-gen MPAs are tied into financial and governance models aligned with climate-resilience outcomes. This means moving beyond donor-driven conservation budgets to resilience bonds, insurance-linked protection, private-sector risk sharing and credit flows tied to ecosystem services. In short, the reef becomes an asset class for coastal resilience. Some pioneering efforts hint at this shift. The Global Fund for Coral Reefs (under the World Bank/GEF umbrella) is exploring reef-plus financing models, integrating reef health with coastal-defense economics and tourism-risk mitigation. Island nations with tourism-dependent reefs (such as the Seychelles) are beginning to explore parametric insurance tied to reef condition. While these efforts are nascent, they mark the transition from protection-only to resilience-oriented financial design. One of the key challenges remains prioritising within MPAs those reef systems that have the greatest chance of persisting—so-called climate refugia. These are reefs naturally exposed to cooler upwelling, shading, or adaptive coral strains. Protecting these first may offer higher bang-for-buck than attempting to protect all reefs equally. This shift requires sophisticated data analytics, modelling, and risk-mapping. Policy: Where It’s Adapting—and Where It’s Stagnating On the policy front, there is both movement and inertia. A growing number of national adaptation plans, especially among small island developing states (SIDS), now recognise coral reef resilience as a critical adaptation pathway. International bodies, including the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI), now emphasise reef protection within climate adaptation agendas. Yet significant policy gaps endure. Many MPAs continue to be designed primarily for fishing-pressure reduction or pollution control—not thermal-stress mitigation or adaptive zoning. Institutional capacity in many reef nations remains weak, particularly for technical monitoring, dynamic governance or financial innovation. Perhaps most fundamentally, the global climate regime has no dedicated mechanism for reef protection—no reef-specific emissions target, no international reef insurance fund, no global carbon-market equivalency for reef resilience. In the absence of such mechanisms, MPAs remain dependent on national budgets or donor grants alone, limiting scale and innovation. Some countries show flashes of policy innovation. The Seychelles, for instance, has piloted marine-resilience bonds and sustainable tourism-linked reef protection. In Australia, the management of the Great Barrier Reef has begun to incorporate resilience-based interventions and climate-risk forecasting. Still, these remain exceptions, not yet the norm. A further policy bottleneck is the disconnect between conservation agencies and finance ministries. Reefs have long been viewed through a biodiversity lens rather than as climate-resilience infrastructure. This framing limits access to adaptation finance, risk‐finance instruments, and climate-resilience capital flows. Changing this framing is essential. The Coral-Carbon Paradox: Why Reefs Are Missing from Blue Carbon Finance—and How That Can Change In parallel to governance reform, there is a glaring gap in how coral reefs are treated within the climate-finance architecture. The concept of “blue carbon” has gained traction in recent years, describing the capacity of coastal and marine habitats to absorb and store CO₂—mangroves, seagrasses and tidal marshes being the primary beneficiaries. These ecosystems have measurable carbon stocks, standardised accounting methodologies, and thus meaningful access to carbon-finance instruments. By contrast, coral reefs are largely absent from blue-carbon markets—and yet the logic for including them is compelling. Reefs provide vast ecosystem services: they support fisheries, protect coastlines from storm surge and erosion, undergird tourism economies and harbour biodiversity. Their failure imposes heavy social, economic and adaptation costs on coastal communities. So why haven’t they entered the carbon-finance agenda in any meaningful way? The answer lies in several structural and technical impediments. First, reefs store comparatively little long-term organic carbon. Their skeletal calcium-carbonate structures do not translate easily into the carbon-sequestration units used in current carbon markets. As one ecosystem-finance review notes: “Limited evidence is hindering uptake and progress” of blue-carbon schemes for non-traditional habitats. Second, the vulnerability and high risk of reef decline make them unattractive as long-term assets for investors. Third, policy definitions of blue carbon rarely include reef habitats, so the institutional pathways for finance are largely closed. Yet the time is right for change. If we shift the metric from pure carbon-storage to resilience value, reefs merit serious inclusion. Reefs reduce wave energy, limit coastal erosion, support fisheries and tourism livelihoods—all of which have measurable economic value. The emerging field of parametric insurance for reefs—linking reef health to payouts after storm events—is one frontier. Another is biodiversity-credit systems coupling conservation outcomes with finance. For global institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, the opportunity is two-fold. First, they can catalyse reef-resilience finance by underwriting pilot instruments, setting standards, and integrating reef metrics into adaptation funding. Second, they can shift national budgeting paradigms—treating reef health as climate-adaptation infrastructure rather than discretionary conservation. Doing so unlocks funding, elevates reef protection in national priorities, and draws in risk-capital. Toward a Resilient Future for Coral Reefs Re-designing reef management and finance for the climate-era means doing several things concurrently. We must actively identify and protect climate-refugia reefs—those naturally more resistant to heat stress or acidification—and prioritise them for interventions. We must equip MPAs with the technical capacity, real-time monitoring and adaptive governance necessary to anticipate and respond to heatwaves, bleaching events and acidification pulses. We must expand restoration and assisted-evolution tools: transplanting resilient strains, manipulating symbionts, deploying artificial reef frameworks and experimenting with shading or cooling technologies. From a finance and policy perspective, the shift is equally urgent. Reefs must enter the adaptation finance agenda, not just the conservation agenda. Carbon-finance definitions must evolve to resilience-finance definitions, making reef health a measurable asset. Incentives need to shift: tourism operators, insurers, coastal developers and governments all benefit from healthy reefs—so they should help pay for them. Multilateral institutions must create frameworks for reef-linked resilience bonds, parametric reef insurance, biodiversity credits and adaptation trusts. Finally—and critically—none of this will succeed if global greenhouse-gas emissions continue to rise unchecked. The best-designed MPAs, the most sophisticated monitoring systems, the most resilient coral strains will still collapse under the weight of relentless warming. A recent mapping study warns that reef futures are “intrinsically tied to global emission trajectories.” Local action buys time—but it does not buy immunity. Conclusion Coral reefs were once assumed to be savable with well-designed marine parks, strong fisheries management and clean-water regulation. In a warming, acidifying ocean, that assumption is no longer sufficient. The model of “protect and leave alone” must give way to “protect, adapt and finance.” MPAs should evolve into climate-smart hubs of resilience. Reefs should be reframed not simply as biodiversity-treasures, but as critical infrastructure for coastal protection, food security and climate adaptation. Reef resilience must be embedded within the climate-finance system—bridging conservation budgets and adaptation capital, drawing private and public investment into the blue economy. The path ahead is formidable. But the choice is stark: evolve the model—or let thousands of reef systems crumble under the tide of climate change. For the millions who depend on them for food, income, and coastal protection, there is no other option. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3335/americas-next-frontier-unlocking-africas-3-4t-agribusiness-market.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3335/americas-next-frontier-unlocking-africas-3-4t-agribusiness-market.html Thu, 16 Oct 2025 15:31:04 +0530 In an exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Brent Boydston, Founder, Ag Center Solutions outlined how U.S. agribusiness can seize Africa’s $3.4 trillion AfCFTA opportunity. Feed grains, soy, and DDGS are prime entry points, but success hinges on relationship-driven partnerships, not just transactions. He stressed the need for investments in smallholder modernization, mechanization, and digital agtech to boost productivity and resilience. Boydston also called for next-generation trade frameworks that combine IP protection, technology transfer, and carbon-credit access. Africa’s low-input, biodiversity-aligned farming models, he noted, offer critical lessons for sustainable growth. Strategic collaboration, he concluded, can transform Africa into a hub for high-value food production and U.S.–Africa agricultural synergy. I. Market Potential & Geopolitics Africa’s Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) represents a $3.4 trillion market. From your perspective, what segments of agribusiness—inputs, processing, logistics, retail—are most attractive for U.S. companies to enter first? From my perspective, feed grains such as corn, sorghum, DDGS from ethanol production, soybeans, and soybean meal represent the most attractive first entry points into African markets. Feed demand for the continent’s expanding poultry and livestock industries continues to rise, and population growth will only intensify the need for affordable protein. Market entry will not be without challenges, differing regulatory requirements across the continent will need to be navigated, but these can be addressed through engagement and partnership. The U.S. is late to Africa compared to China, Brazil, and increasingly India. What does America need to do differently to avoid being boxed out of Africa’s agricultural future ? U.S. businesses need to recognize and seize the opportunities emerging in Africa. Companies must understand that African nations and their people want to partner with American firms, but success requires relationship building rather than transactional thinking. Business in Africa is fundamentally relationship-based. U.S. firms must invest in learning the cultures of the countries where they operate, which is entirely achievable with the right guidance. They should also collaborate with established U.S. government entities active in Africa such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Foreign Agricultural Service (USDA FAS) and with cooperators like the U.S. Grains and Bioproducts Council and the United Soybean Export Council. Both have strong local networks across the continent and can play a key role in facilitating market entry and building lasting partnerships. II. Investment & Capital Flows African agriculture still receives less than 5 per cent of total FDI inflows. Where can U.S. venture capital and private equity make the most immediate impact—financing smallholder resilience, scaling agtech, or building midstream infrastructure? Smallholder resilience, agtech scale-up, and midstream infrastructure are all vital investment avenues, but one area often overlooked is agricultural education paired with modernization. Farming practices in many African regions lag for several reasons, limited access to capital, weak risk-management tools, insufficient training in modern methods, and regulatory systems that are sometimes influenced by outside pressures rather than science. Take genetically modified organisms (GMOs), for example. Since their adoption in the U.S. in the mid-1990s, GMO crops have helped drive a transition from heavy tillage to minimum- or no-till systems, conserving soil and reducing input use. Yet in several African nations, bans on GMO seed cultivation or import prevent farmers from accessing these technologies and the benefits they bring in pest resistance, yield improvement, and soil protection. Investment that supports education, modernization, and science-based regulation would have immediate and lasting impact. III. Supply Chains & Infrastructure Africa faces a paradox: it holds 60 per cent of the world’s uncultivated arable land but imports $75 billion in food annually. Where can U.S. companies intervene most effectively—fertiliser supply, mechanisation, grain storage, cold chain? U.S. companies can make an immediate difference by strengthening fertilizer supply chains, investing in farm mechanization services, and developing modern grain-storage and cold-chain infrastructure to reduce post-harvest losses. These interventions not only increase productivity but also improve food security and the profitability of local producers. With the U.S. pushing for “friend-shoring” and resilient supply chains, can Africa realistically become a hub for U.S. agri-commodity processing and re-export into global markets? Africa is uniquely positioned to become an exporter of food and processed agricultural products. Large-scale production for the EU already makes Europe one of Africa’s top export destinations, while trade ties with India and other Asian markets continue to deepen. With a growing egg and broiler industry, African nations have the opportunity to expand value-added food production while importing feed grains from the United States. When paired with education and technology transfer, currently uncultivated lands could be brought into sustainable production allowing Africa to export higher-value commodities to its key markets. IV. Technology & Innovation Digital platforms in Kenya, Nigeria, and South Africa are redefining input distribution and farmer credit. Where can U.S. tech giants and agri-startups collaborate to leapfrog Africa into next-generation farming ecosystems? Technology and innovation go hand in hand, and Africa is poised to lead in digital agriculture. Internet access has expanded rapidly, a 115 per cent increase in Sub-Saharan Africa between 2016 and 2022, and this connectivity creates opportunities for improved efficiency and integration with global market. U.S. agri-tech startups should look to Africa not only as a market but as a collaborative partner for developing scalable digital solutions. Whether in AI-driven crop consulting, digital finance platforms, or precision-farming applications, the continent’s young, tech-savvy population offers fertile ground for next-generation agricultural innovation. V. Policy & Trade Architecture AGOA (African Growth and Opportunity Act) is set to expire in 2025. What kind of next-generation U.S.–Africa trade framework would best unlock agribusiness potential? While it remains uncertain whether the U.S. Congress or Administration will renew or replace AGOA, that uncertainty will likely drive some African nations to pursue bilateral trade agreements with the United States or to pivot toward other markets. Fortunately, a foundation already exists: the U.S. has a full free-trade agreement (FTA) with Morocco; a Trade & Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA) with the East African Community (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, South Sudan); and multiple other TIFAs and Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) across the continent. These frameworks provide blueprints for deeper engagement between African nations and the United States. They can also help offset the loss of AGOA by encouraging commercial linkages between countries that already have agreements with the U.S. and those that do not. Are tariff concessions and export incentives enough—or do we need more holistic agreements covering knowledge transfer, IP, and carbon credits for regenerative farming? More comprehensive agreements are needed beyond tariff concessions or export incentives. Global integration requires frameworks that protect intellectual property and facilitate technology exchange while ensuring fair access to emerging markets like carbon credits. For example, to receive carbon credits, farmers must conduct soil sampling and meet strict verification requirements, activities that generate valuable data. That data should remain the property of the farmers who create it, reflecting their knowledge and stewardship. At the same time, they need access to improved tools, such as corn seed varieties designed for maximum carbon sequestration. Protecting the intellectual property behind those seeds and precision-agriculture systems is vital. Formal trade agreements can safeguard both farmers’ rights and corporate innovation, maximizing benefits for all parties. VI. Sustainability & Climate Diplomacy What lessons can Africa teach the U.S. about low-input, biodiversity-aligned farming models—and how can that shape bilateral partnerships? Though the U.S. and African farm sectors differ in scale and technology, they share a common goal: producing food sustainably for a growing population. Increasingly, African nations are turning to the United States for guidance on boosting production while conserving natural resources. A good example is the U.S.-based consulting company Sustainable Agricultural Solutions for Africa, which has worked in Ghana, Rwanda, and Kenya to transfer U.S. know-how on sustainable practices. These collaborations demonstrate a strong mutual interest in sharing best practices and are critical to shaping future bilateral partnerships. They provide tangible proof that sustainability can be achieved through cooperation and knowledge exchange on both sides of the Atlantic. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3333/ai-in-agriculture-sustainable-path-to-climate-resilient-farming.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3333/ai-in-agriculture-sustainable-path-to-climate-resilient-farming.html Thu, 16 Oct 2025 10:47:50 +0530 In this thought-provoking piece, Guillermo Medina, Chief Digital Officer at Pantaleon Sugar Holdings and Lead at Stomata Labs, envisions a world where farms evolve from sustaining humanity to actively healing the planet. He explores how artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming agriculture—from integrating fragmented data to delivering prescriptive, real-time insights that boost efficiency and yields. The article highlights AI’s synergy with regenerative practices such as biochar application and microbial soil enrichment, revealing how data-driven strategies can enhance carbon sequestration and soil health. Medina argues that AI empowers farmers to make smarter, evidence-based decisions, turning uncertainty into resilience amid climate volatility. Ultimately, he calls for a shift from extraction to regeneration, where technology and nature co-create a sustainable, abundant agricultural future. Imagine a world where farms not only sustain billions but also heal the planet. As climate change increases—bringing weather volatility, droughts, and floods—agriculture faces important challenges. Yet, amid these challenges lies a powerful ally: artificial intelligence (AI). Far from a futuristic gimmick, AI is already transforming farming into a resilient, sustainable force. But how does it work? And why should those in the agri space embrace this digital shift? Let's explore the journey, sparking that inner curiosity to rethink traditional practices. AI's role in agriculture isn't a sudden leap; it's a natural evolution. It starts with unifying scattered data—from satellite & sensors to weather reports—into coherent insights. Descriptive statistics follow, describing a picture of what's happening on the ground. Then comes the "why"—analytics uncovering patterns in crop growth or yield dips. Prediction takes it further, forecasting outcomes like weed & pest outbreaks. Ultimately, AI reaches prescriptive levels, advising "what to do" for optimal results. This progression mirrors how humans learn: observe, understand, predict, act. In practice, AI-driven precision agriculture uses tools like GPS and automation to boost efficiency, reducing waste and enhancing productivity. Studies show AI can increase crop yields by up to 25 per cent by optimizing inputs like water and fertilizers. The market reflects this momentum, projected to grow from $1.7 billion in 2023 to $4.7 billion by 2028. Isn't it intriguing how data, once unified, becomes a roadmap to smarter farming? At the center of this transformation is agriculture's symbiotic dance with nature. Plants, through photosynthesis, capture atmospheric carbon dioxide, converting it into biomass while releasing oxygen—essential for human life. This interdependence calls for wiser collaboration: prioritizing healthy soils teeming with fungi and bacteria. We've seen promising explorations with biochar—a charcoal-like substance from biomass pyrolysis—combined with bioengineering. Biochar enhances soil fertility, nutrient retention, and water-holding capacity, fostering microbial habitats that boost plant growth. As a bonus, it sequesters carbon long-term, reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Healthy soils can store two to three times more organic carbon than the atmosphere, with potential to sequester over a billion additional tons annually through sustainable practices. Regenerative farming, aided by these methods, could lock away up to 5 billion metric tons of CO2 equivalent per year until 2050. This naturally cuts reliance on petroleum-based fertilizers, as microbial activity recycles nutrients more efficiently. Ongoing data collection and AI verification at Stomata Labs are refining these combinations, turning trial-and-error into evidence-based strategies. Plants in vibrant soils grow faster, capturing more carbon while building biomass—essentially carbon rearranged into life-sustaining structures. Nature's elegance is evident here: higher growth rates mean greater carbon drawdown, with global croplands holding potential for 29 to 65 petagrams of additional soil carbon storage. But why stop at growth? This biomass opens doors to innovative transformations—biofuels for clean energy, green chemicals & supplies for eco-friendly industries. Picture turning crop residues into sustainable alternatives, harmonizing agribusiness with planetary health. The opportunities we envision are abundant. It's a shift from extraction to regeneration, where farming becomes a natural climate solution. AI amplifies this by driving operational excellence. It's about delivering the right data at the right time, empowering people to make informed choices. Digital assistants will guide attention where needed, saving time. Meanwhile, digital guardians monitor processes, questioning actions to optimize outcomes—from seed selection to harvest. AI recommends precise water and fertilizer amounts and timing, minimizing waste and ensuring robust crop development. This isn't a one-off fix; it's a journey, evolving with each season's lessons. In agronomy, where climate volatility wreaks havoc, AI assists in placing "educated bets." It analyzes data to guide replanting, weed and pest control, and fertilization—critical decisions that can make or break yields and companies. By adopting regenerative practices like nutrient management, AI helps mitigate risks, turning uncertainty into opportunity. Success hinges on curiosity and discipline: building robust data models, then verifying them against real-world agricultural processes. Failure? It's part of the growth, teaching resilience and refinement. This mindset fosters innovation, blending technology with nature's wisdom. As we face a changing world, AI offers agriculture a path to resilience—not just surviving but thriving in harmony with the planet. It sparks awareness of our interdependence with soils and plants, inspiring a digital transformation that feels both urgent and achievable. What if your farm could capture more carbon, yield more, and innovate endlessly? The journey starts with curiosity—exploring tools, data, and partnerships that turn possibilities into reality. In this evolving landscape, the ag community has the power to lead, leaving a legacy of abundance for generations. ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3332/skybound-sustainability-indias-race-to-become-saf-hub-of-global-south.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3332/skybound-sustainability-indias-race-to-become-saf-hub-of-global-south.html Wed, 15 Oct 2025 16:59:05 +0530 India is charting a bold course to become the Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) hub of the Global South, leveraging its vast biomass, ethanol infrastructure, and policy-driven mandates. With domestic blending targets, state-backed incentives, and pioneering projects like IOC’s Panipat facility, the country is converting waste streams—used cooking oil, agricultural residues, and municipal solid waste—into low-carbon jet fuel. By 2040, India could produce 8–10 million tonnes of SAF annually, slashing lifecycle emissions by up to 80 per cent, generating green jobs, and creating export opportunities across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Startups, EPC firms, and R&D hubs are strengthening industrial capability, while harmonized global standards ensure both domestic adoption and international credibility. In short, India is transforming a climate challenge into a strategic, economic, and environmental advantage, positioning itself as the engine of aviation decarbonization for emerging markets. Aviation is global yet carbon-bound. Planes still rely on liquid hydrocarbons; electrification is limited, hydrogen is years away, and Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) is the only immediate lever to cut emissions in a sector responsible for 2–3 per cent of global CO₂. “The trajectory of SAF is nothing short of extraordinary—expanding from a nascent 5 million gallons in 2021 to 24.5 million gallons in 2023, a CAGR exceeding 100 per cent. Yet this still accounts for less than 0.1 per cent of global jet fuel demand, underscoring both the scale of the challenge and the immensity of the opportunity ‘’, mentioned Dr. Nripanka Das, Author, Sustainability & Carbon Markets. “The Sustainable Aviation Fuel Grand Challenge, announced in 2021, has set audacious targets of 3 billion gallons by 2030 and 35 billion gallons by 2050, requiring unprecedented scaling of production capacity and technological deployment. Pathways such as Fischer–Tropsch, approved by ASTM in 2009, already demonstrate how woody biomass, municipal solid waste, and agricultural residues can be transformed into jet fuel virtually indistinguishable from conventional Jet A. In this lies the promise of scaling an industry that not only meets aviation’s exacting standards but also redefines waste as the feedstock of the skies ,” he opined. In 2024, SAF supplied under 1 per cent of demand, leaving the Global South exposed. Fast-growing airlines in India, ASEAN, and Africa face minimal local supply, giving India a strategic opening. “In 2025, real progress in SAF isn’t measured by headlines but by bankable projects—those reaching final investment decision, securing long-term offtakes with price floors or contracts for difference, and moving into genuine EPC mobilization. Success is also measured in carbon intensity as much as in gallons produced, with lowering lifecycle emissions now as critical as expanding capacity,” stated Dr Jennifer Holmgren, CEO, LanzaTech. “In Washington, the vaunted ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ has compressed SAF’s erstwhile premium of $1.75 per gallon to a modest $1.00 under 45Z, ostensibly levelling the fiscal playing field with ethanol, but in reality propelling capital to cheaper road-fuel pathways such as renewable diesel. India, by contrast, has wisely eschewed the per-gallon palliatives of subsidies in favour of mandated momentum: a 1 per cent SAF blend in international flights by 2027, 2 per cent in 2028 under CORSIA, and an aspirational trajectory toward 5 per cent thereafter. Augmented by state-level incentives—capital subsidies, land concessions, and tax reimbursements—New Delhi is not merely nudging an industry, it is summoning it inexorably forward, guaranteeing a market, and inscribing India’s aviation future in cleaner, greener, and more resilient hues,’’ she added. " The American model bets on the market rewarding low-carbon fuels without playing favorites; the Indian model assumes SAF won’t take off without a legal runway. The strategic takeaway is clear: in the U.S., the winners will treat thinner credits as a design constraint, focusing on relentless carbon intensity reduction, locking in ironclad offtakes, and securing feedstock certainty. In India, success will hinge on executing the mandate-to-manufacturing flywheel—leveraging guaranteed demand, building robust domestic supply chains, and maintaining strict capex discipline. In both markets, SAF will only scale at pace where policy certainty aligns with the discipline of bankable project finance " -------- Dr Jennifer Holmgren, CEO, LanzaTech India’s aviation sector, ferrying 240 million passengers in 2024 and poised to double by 2030, stands at a pivotal inflection point. Fuel demand is projected to soar from 16 million tonnes in 2030 to 31 million by 2040. Enter Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF): capable of slashing lifecycle emissions by up to 80 per cent, India could produce 8–10 million tonnes annually by 2040—surpassing domestic demand, catalyzing 1.4 million green jobs, and opening export avenues. Already, 88 airports operate on green energy, with Bengaluru, Delhi, Mumbai, and Hyderabad setting carbon-neutral benchmarks of global significance. IOC is spearheading commercial SAF production at Panipat, with ISCC CORSIA certification. An initial 35,000-tonne annual output, sourced from used cooking oil from hotels, restaurants, and food manufacturers like Haldiram’s, will satisfy India’s 1 per cent international blending mandate. Alcohol-to-jet pathways and export prospects, initially targeting European carriers, are also under exploration. With blending mandates proliferating across Indonesia, Mexico, Canada, Europe, and Africa, and with low-carbon ethanol prospects beckoning in the United States, Praj finds itself at the cusp of a transformative expansion—broadening its portfolio in CBG, SAF, and ETCA while simultaneously amplifying the international dimension of its enterprise. Aircraft readiness is assured: Airbus confirms all planes can operate on a 50 per cent SAF blend, and Indian carriers have successfully executed demonstration flights. India is positioning itself not merely as a consumer, but as the SAF fulcrum of the Global South—where policy, pilots, and production converge to chart a sustainable, high-flying future. India’s Feedstock Opportunity: A Diverse Ecosystem India’s edge in the sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) race lies in its abundant and diverse biomass, not subsidies. Unlike nations constrained by monocultures or geography, India can channel agricultural residues, industrial by-products, urban waste, and renewable energy into multiple SAF pathways—positioning itself as both a domestic and export hub. In words of Dr. Pramod Chaudhari, Chairman Praj Group, “India is uniquely positioned to become the hub for SAF in the Global South. Its strategic location in the Asia–Pacific, with strong air connectivity to Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia, makes it a natural node for SAF supply and distribution. The Ethanol Blending Programme, scaled from modest beginnings to 20 per cent, demonstrates India’s ability to mobilise feedstock, implement policy, and drive impact at scale—delivering foreign exchange savings and strengthening rural economies. The foundation is further strengthened by India’s unmatched feedstock diversity. Agricultural residues and sugarcane by-products offer abundant raw material streams for SAF production.” " Praj has established several Centers of Excellence in collaboration with leading research institutes, working across the entire biofuels value chain—right from feedstock and technology development to end-product and application development. At the heart of this ecosystem is Praj Matrix, our state-of-the-art R&D center, which serves as the innovation hub for developing and commercialising cutting-edge technologies for biofuels and SAF. This strong integration of research, policy, and industry not only accelerates breakthroughs but also reinforces India’s credentials as a frontrunner in the global SAF journey " --- Dr. Pramod Chaudhari, Chairman, Praj Group Agricultural residues are the cornerstone. India generates 230–250 million tonnes annually, including rice straw, maize stalks, and sugarcane bagasse, much of which is wasted or burned. Rice straw alone contributes 80–85 million tonnes of emissions in northern states. Redirecting even 15–20 per cent into SAF via gasification, Fischer-Tropsch synthesis, or cellulosic ethanol-to-jet could anchor a domestic industry while tackling severe winter air pollution. “SAF can be blended at different levels with limits between 10 per cent and 50 per cent, depending on the feedstock and how the fuel is produced. According to the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), over 360,000 commercial flights have used SAF at 46 different airports largely concentrated in the United States and Europe. An estimated 1 billion dry tons of biomass can be collected sustainably each year in the United States, enough to produce 50–60 billion gallons of low-carbon biofuels, ” stated Dr. Marcus Griswold, Founder at Little Green Myths. “ Ethanol is another pillar. India’s fuel-blending programme has built over 5 billion litres of annual capacity, spanning 1G molasses and emerging 2G cellulosic plants. Existing infrastructure can pivot to alcohol-to-jet (ATJ) production, with Praj Industries piloting scalable ATJ technology alongside global partners. " Feedstock costs represent the largest component of biofuel production costs, typically accounting for 40-60 per cent of total production expenses depending on conversion pathway and feedstock type. Wood residues and sawmill by-products currently cost $40-80 per dry ton delivered to conversion facilities, while dedicated energy crops may cost $60-120 per dry ton depending on production systems and transportation distances. These feedstock costs translate to $0.80-2.40 per gallon of biofuel production cost, indicating the critical importance of feedstock procurement strategies and supply chain optimization for overall project economics" --- Dr. Nripanka Das, Author, Sustainability & Carbon Markets “Ethanol is no longer confined to being a road-fuel blend; it’s a low-cost, versatile building block for an extraordinary range of products, from sustainable aviation fuel via alcohol-to-jet (ATJ) technology to textiles, cleaning agents, and everyday household goods. With advances in carbon capture and utilization (CCU), we can now make ethanol from industrial emissions, municipal waste, and even biogenic CO₂, turning liabilities into valuable feedstock. The result is a molecule that sits at the crossroads of decarbonization and circular economy. This is ethanol’s reinvention story: from a single-purpose fuel additive to a platform chemical powering the next wave of sustainable manufacturing ,’’ mentioned Dr. Holmgren. Niche feedstocks and urban waste further broaden the portfolio. Used cooking oil (1.4–1.5 million tonnes/year) feeds HEFA pathways, while municipal solid waste (62 million tonnes/year, 30 per cent treated) can support gasification-FT SAF routes, aligning aviation decarbonisation with Swachh Bharat and Smart Cities initiatives. “Airlines are betting billions and billions on jet fuel made from yesterday’s French fries—but can cooking oil really power the future of aviation? SAF made from used cooking oil can cut emissions by up to 80 per cent compared to regular jet fuel, but right now they account for only about 1 per cent of the world’s jet fuel supply. It’s also important to remember that not all SAF is created equal—some are made from food crops that can raise other environmental concerns, while waste oils like used cooking oil are among the most effective and sustainable sources ,’’ advocated Justin Goldsberry; CEO and Founder of Goldsberry Management Group, LLC. " We are on the cusp of new scaling for sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) in both the United States and India. But unlike solar and wind energy, renewable fuels carry a significant premium vs conventional fuels. Covering SAF’s cost above conventional jet fuel is a key factor to grow the sector. There must be a way to cover both the infrastructure capital investments and the ongoing operational costs of producing SAF. In the recent past, the U.S. Department of Energy Loan Office oversaw a loan program that offered funding for SAF refineries at favorable rates. Today there are no government programs to provide low-cost debt. The U.S. still offers incentives to cover operations in the form of credits for agricultural products (the renewable fuel standard – RFS) and for producers combining the product with fossil-based fuel (the blenders tax credit, and 45Z clean fuel production credit). Individual states are also providing incentives for regional consumption such as California and Illinois. There is no U.S. SAF mandate" ---- Adam Klauber, Vice President Sustainability and Digital Supply Chain, World Energy Looking ahead, cheap green hydrogen and captured CO₂ enable a Power-to-Liquids future. India’s record-low solar tariffs ($0.025/kWh) and $2.4 billion Green Hydrogen Mission create early positioning for synthetic SAF, potentially a decade from commercial scale. In the words of Suzanne McKenzie, Sales Director, Lifecycle Oils, UK, “ The sustainability credentials of SAF depend heavily on what it is made from. Second-generation biofuels (derived from waste like UCO) offer substantial environmental advantages over first-generation biofuels made from virgin crops such as palm oil or rapeseed oil. First-generation biofuels are controversial from a sustainability perspective because they can compete with products that would end up in the food chain. This can drive up prices and expand agricultural land use. “ Suzanne further opined that considering the growing biofuel feedstock crops to be carbon-intensive, and is associated with deforestation, land conversion, biodiversity loss, and high water consumption. - repurposing a waste stream like UCO, could  completely sidestep the significant carbon emissions associated with agricultural production and land-use change. UCO-derived biofuels can slash lifecycle carbon footprints by an estimated 80 per cent  when benchmarked against conventional fuels, and 40 per cent when compared to first- generation biofuels. She further highlights the pressure to decarbonise aviation is translating directly into binding SAF mandates and targets worldwide, which is driving a substantial increase in demand for the fuel. “The UK mandate legally requires a 2 per cent blend of SAF in all jet fuel from 2025, rising to 10 per cent by 2030. Similarly, the EU's ReFuelEU Aviation regulation starts at a 2 per cent minimum blend in 2025 and increases to 6 per cent by 2030”, she opined. "Across the Asia-Pacific region, we're also seeing strong policy signals and emerging targets on SAF. Japan is exploring a 10 per cent SAF share by 2030 for departing flights, and Singapore is introducing a 1 per cent SAF target for 2026, which could rise to 3-5 per cent by 2030. South Korea and India are both considering a 1 per cent target for 2027. The trend is clear – countries worldwide see SAF as the best way to cut aviation emissions in the mid-term. Meeting this demand will require significant scaling of SAF production – and demand is already outstripping supply. Current forecasts predict that by 2030, global demand for SAF will be around 15 million Mt, and by 2035, this looks set to reach 40 million Mt. In 2024, global SAF production was around 1 million Mt, with current predictions suggesting global capacity will only grow to around 18 million Mt by 2035. " --- Suzanne McKenzie, Sales Director, Lifecycle Oils, UK “Venturing into Sustainable Aviation Fuel is not just about aligning India with the global targets under the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation; it is about leading from the front,’’ mentioned Vijay Nirani, Managing Director, TruAlt Bioenergy. “Unlike countries such as Singapore or the UAE, where access to agricultural land is limited, India’s natural strengths in terms of vast agricultural base, give us the chance to turn this challenge into a defining advantage for our industry as well as environment,’’ he added. Compared with peers—Brazil’s sugarcane focus, Southeast Asia’s palm reliance, Africa’s residue abundance but limited infrastructure—India uniquely combines biomass density, refining and engineering capability, and growing aviation demand. The task now is acceleration: Converting latent feedstock abundance into a globally competitive SAF industry, bridging the supply gap for the Global South. " At TruAlt Bioenergy, we plan to establish a facility producing 10 crore litres of SAF annually, positioning us among the world’s largest ethanol-to-SAF producers. With CORSIA’s mandatory offsetting for international flights from 2027 and India’s 1 per cent SAF blending target, we are committed to scaling production capacity. Our ambition is to help India meet regulatory milestones while advancing sustainable aviation fuel adoption on a global scale.” --- Vijay Nirani, Managing Director, TruAlt Bioenergy Policy Architecture and Industrial Capability: Laying the SAF Foundations India’s sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) strategy exemplifies a rare convergence of policy precision and pragmatic precedent. Beginning with a 1 per cent blend in 2027 for international flights, rising to 2 per cent in 2028, these targets echo ethanol’s early E5 trajectory, signaling credibility to investors. With state-owned oil marketing companies—IOC, BPCL, and HPCL—underwriting demand, the sector gains sovereign-grade certainty in a capital-intensive space, translating policy intent into actionable investment confidence. " The good news is: the demand is definitely there; however, the biggest challenge for SAF adoption is scaling—waste oils are limited, production costs remain high, and infrastructure isn’t yet built to handle wider adoption. Furthermore, governments and policy support worldwide is helping, with U.S. incentives, European reporting rules, and efforts in some countries in Asia to expand SAF production and adoption. Still, the gap between ambition and availability is a major challenge because there’s only so much used cooking oil that can go around, and much of it is already accounted for in other industries. " --- Justin Goldsberry, CEO and Founder of Goldsberry Management Group, LLC Global compatibility forms the second pillar. By harmonizing BIS standards with ASTM International, HEFA, ATJ, and Fischer–Tropsch pathways gain immediate export legitimacy, while carbon accounting aligned with ICAO’s CORSIA ensures acceptance in Europe and the U.S. Without Western-style subsidies, India relies on engineering-led efficiency and procurement certainty—a model attractive to airlines wary of politically tethered supply chains. Catalytic finance, through NABARD credit, green bonds, or viability gap funding, remains essential to bridge upfront capital gaps. Industrial capability provides the third lever. TruAlt Bioenergy’s planned 10-crore-litre SAF facility positions India among the world’s largest ethanol-to-jet producers. Praj’s Centers of Excellence and R&D hub, Praj Matrix, integrate innovation across the biofuels value chain. India’s EPC sector delivers biofuel plants at 20–30 per cent lower capex than Western peers, while startups like GPS Renewables provide blockchain-based feedstock traceability. Together, these levers—demand certainty, global compatibility, and industrial depth—position India as the SAF systems integrator for the Global South, bridging domestic aviation growth with regional decarbonisation leadership. Strategic Leveraging for India’s SAF Ascension India’s ambition to become the sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) hub for the Global South requires more than incremental moves. It demands flagship investments, diversified technologies, climate integration, and regional market creation. While blending mandates and pilot projects signal intent, the real inflection point lies in scaling multiple production pathways and leveraging India’s geopolitical position. "There must be a way to cover both the upfront infrastructure costs and the ongoing operational expenses of producing sustainable aviation fuel. Globally, countries like the U.S. rely on a mix of loan programs, tax credits, and state-level incentives, even without a federal SAF mandate ”, mentioned Adam Klauber, VP Sustainability and Digital Supply Chain, World Energy. “India is taking a similar approach, combining national SAF blending targets with regional incentives—land subsidies and fuel tax relief—to encourage investment. But mandates alone aren’t enough; without enforceable penalties for underperformance, the sector risks stagnation. To move SAF from promise to scale, India must marry financial scaffolding with policy teeth, ensuring both capital and operational viability for producers across the ecosystem," he added. "Producing enough Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) to power planes is no small feat. The biomass requirements are immense, and land-use concerns—like corn cultivation in the U.S.—cannot be ignored. Beyond CO₂, we must also account for the full spectrum of emissions when the fuel is burned. Derived from renewable or recycled sources such as oilseeds, algae, fats, and agricultural residues, SAF can cut carbon emissions by up to 70 per cent compared to conventional jet fuel. Blends range from 10 per cent to 50 per cent, and over 360,000 commercial flights have already operated on SAF across 46 airports, mostly in the U.S. and Europe." --- Dr. Marcus Griswold, Founder, Little Green Myths India could produce 8–10 million tonnes of sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) annually by 2040, positioning the country to meet domestic demand and become a key exporter. The ICAO ACT-SAF feasibility study evaluates India’s capacity to produce drop-in SAF, examining feedstock availability, production pathways, infrastructure readiness, and policy frameworks, providing a roadmap suited to India’s socio-economic and environmental context. With over 750 million tonnes of biomass, including 230 million tonnes of surplus agricultural residues, India aims for phased blending of 1 per cent by 2027, 2 per cent by 2028, and 5 per cent by 2030. The initiative is expected to cut 20–25 million tonnes of emissions annually and create new agricultural value chains.  Northern India alone burns over 50 million tonnes of crop residues annually, releasing 150 million tonnes of CO₂; redirecting even part of this into SAF creates a dual win for climate and energy security. A domestic SAF credit market aligned with ICAO’s CORSIA, coupled with EPC exports and technology licensing to Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America, enhances South–South impact. Startups like GPS Renewables strengthen sustainability traceability. With the National Green Hydrogen Mission targeting 5 million tonnes annually by 2030 and ultra-low solar tariffs (~$0.03/kWh), India could become competitive in e-SAF. Anchored by double-digit aviation growth and policy credibility, India is poised to emerge as the SAF hub of the Global South. ----- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3328/turning-tide-for-wildlife-gavin-bruce-on-science-stewardship-and-sustainable-conservation.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3328/turning-tide-for-wildlife-gavin-bruce-on-science-stewardship-and-sustainable-conservation.html Tue, 14 Oct 2025 15:52:50 +0530 In an exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Gavin Bruce, Chief Executive of International Animal Rescue, (www.internationalanimalrescue.org ) reflects on over two decades of conservation, highlighting the shift from top-down approaches to community-led strategies that empower local people while benefiting biodiversity and climate. On coral reefs, he stresses the need for proactive resilience building, combining restoration, local stewardship, and global climate action to safeguard ecosystems. Gavin emphasizes that habitat protection, rather than just flagship species, ensures long-term wildlife sustainability, with community engagement reducing pressures on natural resources. Successful initiatives, such as mangrove restoration, demonstrate how conservation can boost livelihoods, support female empowerment, and protect ecosystems simultaneously. Looking ahead, Gavin remains cautiously optimistic, calling for immediate action and a nature-positive economy to secure the future of wildlife and coral reefs. Opening Gavin, after more than two decades in conservation and animal rescue, what do you see as the single greatest shift in how the world now approaches wildlife protection? The single greatest shift is the move from top-down conservation to community-led, grassroots strategies. Rather than imposing protection on local people, the focus is increasingly on empowering communities that live alongside wildlife and nature.  By recognising their rights, traditional knowledge, wellbeing, and economic needs as central to sustainable conservation. This shift reframes wildlife protection as a social, economic, and climate solution, not just an ecological one.   By investing in people, we are investing in nature, and delivering positive outcomes for people, biodiversity and climate. Coral Reef Conservation Coral reefs support nearly a quarter of all marine species yet face existential threats from bleaching, acidification, and El Niño. How should conservation priorities adapt to this escalating crisis? Conservation priorities will need to shift from reactive protection to proactive resilience building. We need to build on what is resilient, restore what’s damaged, and reform how we live with the ocean. Climate adaptation: protecting and restoring reefs most likely to survive warming and investing in research to evaluate whether it is possible to increase tolerance through assisted evolution and coral propagation, and whether this can be applied at scale. Integrating local stewardship: empowering coastal communities to manage fisheries, curb pollution, and build sustainable livelihoods that reduce pressure on reefs. Creating protected and connected refuges: establishing and connecting marine protected areas so reefs can recover and repopulate after stress events. Addressing root causes: coupling reef conservation with aggressive global climate action to cut emissions. Technologies like coral gardening and assisted evolution are gaining attention. Are these scalable solutions, or stopgaps until broader climate action takes hold? If the conditions are favourable, corals have the ability to regenerate quickly.  I recall doing some research on the Great Barrier Reef, annually photographing transects on a reef that had been affected by a crown of thorns starfish outbreak.  After just ten years, there was significant settlement of a diverse range of corals.  The water quality was good (clarity, acidity, temperature, pollutants), and the recovery was remarkable. Coral conservation strategies must concentrate on boosting ecosystem resilience by reducing greenhouse gas emissions and other drivers of reef degradation. The approach needs to be proactive, such that suitable conditions for coral growth and settlement are embedded into policy and management.  Reactive measures tend to be small-scale and targeted at repairing degradation that has already occurred.  From the research conducted so far, coral restoration can make a small but expensive contribution to the conservation effort. Coastal communities depend heavily on reefs for fisheries and livelihoods. What models best balance ecosystem protection with economic survival? Coastal communities are dependent on both the marine environment and coastal areas for farming; all of this is at threat from the effects of climate change and the breakdown of the natural support systems.  We have seen a tangible impact from working alongside communities on strategies that deliver positive outcomes for people and nature.  The coastal zone often comprises mangroves, seagrass and reefs; each of these ecosystems provides an important function in supporting livelihoods, bolstering biodiversity and mitigating climate.  By implementing community-led mangrove restoration initiatives, we have seen the risk of saltwater intrusion into coastal farms reduce, which supports the economy of coastal villages and reduces the The mangrove ecosystem supports biodiversity and reduces greenhouse gas emissions, mitigating climate change. They provide important nurseries for fish, which can support sustainable fishing and livelihoods. By engaging communities and giving access to knowledge and education, conservation efforts can be achieved through strong collaboration. Sustainable fishing on coral reefs involves a combination of strategies, such as establishing protected areas, using selective fishing gear, and setting catch limits and size restrictions to protect fish populations and their habitats and limiting fishing during spawning seasons. Wildlife Conservation Strategies Conservation efforts often oscillate between protecting flagship species and entire ecosystems. Where should the focus be to deliver the greatest impact? It’s all about habitats!  If you can protect the habitat, then the flora and fauna can thrive. Of course, flagship species are a useful tool in conservation efforts.  We work with bears, tigers and orangutans, which are all high-profile icon species that represent the ecosystems in which they reside. When habitats are degraded, fragmented, encroached upon, destroyed (due to natural or anthropogenic causes), then the sustainability of viable populations is diminished. This then disrupts the balance of the ecosystem, which causes stress, and reduced resilience.  This then becomes a spiral of decline, which is hard to reverse. The most effective conservation strategies empower local communities. The outcome must be increased health, prosperity and wellbeing for the people, which can then reduce the pressure on nature and be a template for resilient ecosystems. Sustainable Wildlife Management Are there global models—whether in forests, grasslands, or marine zones—that stand out as replicable for other regions? Most pressure on wildlife is as a result of anthropomorphic effects. At the local level, this is often due to a lack of access to healthcare, education, knowledge, skills and finance. This leads to activities that put pressure on wildlife and habitats: logging, hunting, poaching, fires, wildlife trade and encroachment.  By engaging communities in initiatives that improve prosperity and wellbeing, the drivers for more exploitative activities are reduced.  This has a positive impact for both people and nature. It is crucial that this is not a top-down model. While there may be similarities, each situation is different; therefore, to create sustainable change, these programs must be community led and tailored to the specific need. These grass-roots initiatives can then be scaled across different landscapes to create lasting change. A great case study is our community mangrove restoration program.  In low lying coastal farming communities, as a result of climate change - rising sea level and increase frequency of storm surges - that is an increased risk of sea water flooding the farms.  Salt water intrusion has a devastating effect on the crops and forces the community into poverty. Historically, the protective mangrove buffer has been removed, which exposes farming villages to a higher risk.  If crops fail, people are forced to engage in other, often exploitative, activities to generate income; this creates a threat to ecosystem. By working with these communities to restore the mangrove buffer, there is a tangible positive impact. Mangroves will boost biodiversity, mitigate saltwater intrusion, absorb carbon and bolster livelihoods.  In parallel, other activities to support communities are made available, access to education and literacy, healthcare, training to use organic farming techniques to increase yields and income generation.  The mangrove restoration work is often taken on by the women in the community, which generates not only additional income but also female empowerment. These are not large-scale NGO activities; instead, this is a local support structure that empowers communities to help themselves and learn from one another, building resilience and creating lasting change. Closing Reflection Looking ahead 25 years, what gives you optimism that coral reefs and wildlife can survive the climate and biodiversity crises—and what must the world do differently, starting now? Economies have long been built on fossil fuels and consumerism, based on the logic that 'more is good' and that wealth is just about money; however, this is changing.  As we can see from the global geopolitical picture, we are not all on the same page but, it is happening.  Technology is moving fast, and citizens are more engaged. There is a growing expectation that governments and corporations take action, and individuals are starting to take responsibility by thinking more about their own footprint. It is not too late, but the time is now to protect the ecosystems that we have left, build resilience, and move quickly to a more sustainable, nature-positive economy. ----- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3325/african-land-arab-capital-indian-innovation-groupe-mrps-vision-to-redefine-global-agriculture.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3325/african-land-arab-capital-indian-innovation-groupe-mrps-vision-to-redefine-global-agriculture.html Tue, 14 Oct 2025 11:59:51 +0530 In an exclusive interaction, Sumit Govind Sharma, Groupe MRP's Global MD and the President of the Indo-African Chamber of Commerce and Industry outlines Groupe MRP’s transformative vision to establish an agriculture corridor across 78 countries spanning Africa and the Arab world. Anchored in the “LIFE – Longterm Integrated Farming Expertise” model, the initiative seeks to bridge Africa’s vast untapped arable potential with India’s agri-innovation strengths, creating integrated, self-sustaining agribusiness clusters. Each cluster will combine food security, value addition, and climate-smart practices—ranging from solar-powered irrigation and biogas generation to digital farm management tools and hydroponic fodder systems. With 50 per cent of output dedicated to local nutrition and the rest fueling export-oriented processing, the model aims to reduce post-harvest losses and empower smallholders, women, and youth through skill development. By 2030, Sharma envisions a trilateral ecosystem—African land, Arab capital, and Indian technology—driving inclusive growth, resilient supply chains, and food security across continents. Groupe MRP aims to create a transformative agriculture corridor across 78 countries. What is the strategic vision for agriculture, and how does it align with India’s strengths in agri-innovation and Africa/Arab market needs? Our strategic vision is anchored in both opportunity and responsibility. Africa represents a paradox: approximately 80–85 per cent of its arable land remains underdeveloped, yet the continent imports over $70 billion worth of processed food annually. Namibia, for instance, produces high-quality tomatoes, yet without local processing infrastructure, it continues to rely on imports, highlighting a persistent gap between raw production and value addition. Similarly, in East Africa, countries like Kenya and Uganda export raw fruits and vegetables while importing packaged goods—a structural inefficiency we aim to address. Groupe MRP seeks to bridge this gap by creating fully integrated agribusiness clusters.Its flagship initiative, “Longterm Integrated Farming Expertise (LIFE)” is founded on the belief that “Food is LIFE,” representing the core of sustainable development and human well-being. It embodies a holistic approach to agriculture that combines various farming components for sustainability and productivity. This promotes recycling of agricultural by-products and efficient resource utilization. It aims to provide regular income and year-round employment for farmers. ​The model enhances food and nutritional security while conserving natural resources. Within these clusters, 50 per cent of output is earmarked for local food security, ensuring immediate nutritional and economic impact, while the remainder supports commercial processing, investment sustainability, and export-ready value chains. To initiate this vision, the program will begin with the development of 100 hectares of land dedicated to implementing the LIFE model. This pilot phase will serve as a foundation for building scalable, self-sustaining agribusiness clusters that can be replicated across regions, fostering inclusive growth and long-term impact. Infrastructure development is central to this strategy. We are establishing processing units, solar farms, and biogas generation facilities sourced from local cattle populations to create energy- and resource-resilient clusters. Beyond physical assets, human capital is a priority. Farmers receive training in modern agronomy, gender-inclusive skill development programs are implemented, and housing and healthcare support is provided for laborers. Our “Blessings From The Earth” (BFTE) Kit is designed to advance nutritional security through homestead gardening and promote holistic farm management. The initiative encompasses seed distribution, kitchen gardens, mushroom cultivation, fruit and vegetable farming, and the development of neem-based fertilizers and bioinsecticides. By combining India’s technological and agri-innovation expertise with Africa’s vast arable potential, the program aims to build a self-sustaining and scalable agricultural ecosystem that strengthens local livelihoods, food resilience, and global value chains. Sustainability is at the forefront of global agriculture. How is the Division planning to introduce scalable, climate-smart, and resource-efficient practices in partner countries? Our approach is multi-dimensional and intentionally integrated, designed to embed sustainability at every stage of agricultural development. Each cluster is structured around circular resource utilization, where rainwater harvesting, rotational cropping, and small-scale fisheries complement crop cultivation to diversify income streams and strengthen resilience against climatic variability. The integration of biogas systems from livestock waste, solar-powered irrigation, and sustainable nutrient management further minimizes dependence on fossil fuels, lowers emissions, and enhances ecological balance. Every intervention is tailored to local agro-climatic conditions, ensuring replicability and scalability. Our goal is to create low-carbon, climate-resilient clusters that optimize water, energy, and soil resources. By embedding sustainability within productivity, we are demonstrating that environmentally conscious agriculture can be both commercially viable and socially transformative. From hydroponics to digital farm tools, India has a rich agri-tech ecosystem. How will Groupe MRP transfer and localize technology to maximize productivity and profitability across Arab geographies? The Arab region poses unique challenges: arid climates, scarce water resources, and extreme temperatures. Yet it offers significant opportunities in livestock and fodder production. While we are in the early exploration phase, we plan to introduce hydroponic fodder systems, IoT-enabled farm management tools, and precision irrigation models. The key is localization: technology must adapt to local soil, climate, and socio-economic conditions. India’s agri-tech solutions—from water-efficient irrigation systems to digital crop monitoring platforms—will be adapted to maximize yield and profitability while reducing resource intensity. This ensures technology adoption is practical, scalable, and financially rewarding for regional farmers, while supporting broader sustainability objectives. What strategies will the Division employ to strengthen supply chains, improve market access, and reduce post-harvest losses, particularly for smallholder farmers? Integration across the value chain is fundamental. Fifty percent of cluster output is designated for government food security programs, while the remainder feeds commercial processing. We are establishing high-value processing units for mango pulp, cold-pressed juices, tomato paste, and packaged vegetables, directly addressing post-harvest loss, which in sub-Saharan Africa is estimated at 30–40 per cent for perishable produce. Organic residues are repurposed into cattle feed or bioenergy, creating near-zero loss systems. Cluster-level, pre-cooling units, and GPS-tracked logistics maintain product quality, extend shelf life, and improve market access. These measures stabilize farmer incomes, enhance product compliance for local and export markets, and establish resilient, export-ready supply chains. How will the agriculture DiVision empower local communities, including women and youth, through training, capacity building, and knowledge transfer? Community empowerment is central to our mission. Farmers receive hands-on training in regenerative agriculture, precision farming, and post-harvest management. Gender-sensitive programs ensure women actively participate in all operational levels, while youth gain marketable skills in agri-tech, digital farm management, and renewable energy applications. By embedding knowledge transfer into daily operations, we create communities capable of sustaining high-productivity, climate-smart agriculture independently. Over time, these clusters become centers of skills development, inclusive growth, and social resilience. Will Groupe MRP pursue public–private partnerships, research collaborations, or joint ventures in these regions to accelerate agricultural innovation and adoption? Collaboration is essential for systemic impact. We are partnering with local governments, private landowners, and agri-tech enterprises to co-develop infrastructure, research programs, and financing solutions. Public–private partnerships enable risk sharing and accelerate the adoption of modern, sustainable practices. Research collaborations and joint ventures allow us to localize technology while leveraging India’s agri-innovation ecosystem. The aim is to create scalable, replicable models where knowledge, finance, and technology converge to maximize socio-economic and environmental benefits. Looking ahead, how do you see this trilateral agriculture initiative contributing to food security, rural livelihoods, and India’s strategic role in Africa and the Arab world by 2030? This initiative creates a strategic triad: African land, Arab capital, and Indian technology converge to form productive, resilient clusters. By 2030, fully operational processing units and integrated supply chains will transform local economies, turning surplus produce into high-value exports such as mango pulp, tomato paste, and packaged foods for both African and Indian markets. The model directly strengthens food security, stabilizes rural livelihoods, and reduces Africa’s dependence on imported processed food—currently exceeding $70 billion annually. Strategically, it positions India as a preferred partner, demonstrating technological leadership and the ability to catalyze sustainable, inclusive agribusiness ecosystems. Ultimately, this is about systemic change: climate-smart agriculture, empowered communities, resilient supply chains, and transcontinental trade linkages—all embedded within an economically viable and environmentally sustainable framework. ---- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3318/1-5-billion-mind-brew-how-mushroom-coffee-is-rewriting-hot-drink-paradigm.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3318/1-5-billion-mind-brew-how-mushroom-coffee-is-rewriting-hot-drink-paradigm.html Fri, 10 Oct 2025 17:10:21 +0530 Mushroom coffee and tea are redefining global beverage habits by blending daily rituals with functional wellness benefits. Driven by adaptogenic mushrooms like Lion’s Mane, Reishi, and Cordyceps, these drinks promise focus, calm, and immune resilience without caffeine crashes. The global mushroom beverage market, valued at $4 billion in 2024, is projected to reach $7.4 billion by 2034, signaling strong consumer adoption. Experts from brands like Nuvedo, Maverick & Farmer, and Hi Shroomz™ see this as the “Fourth Wave of Coffee,” where science and sustainability converge. However, success will hinge on extract quality, clinical credibility, and consumer education to distinguish genuine formulations from superficial trends. The global morning ritual is quietly evolving. Gone are the days of coffee drinkers versus tea drinkers — now, functional hot beverages are staking their claim, with mushroom coffee and tea emerging as the rising stars. These drinks blend centuries of ethnobotanical wisdom with modern cravings for mental clarity, immune support, and a smoother, smarter caffeine experience. So why are mushrooms finding their way into functional beverages like coffee and tea? “Mushrooms are the ultimate functional cheat code. Where botanicals need a blend of herbs to deliver multiple effects, a single mushroom like Lion’s Mane can handle brain health, gut balance, and immunity in one go”, says Jashid Hameed, Founder, Nuvedo. “They’re easier to formulate with — no bitter adaptogen aftertaste to mask — and their bioactives hit harder because our bodies recognize them; after all, we share almost half our DNA with fungi. The fact that they grow on agri-waste with a fraction of the footprint of wild-harvested botanicals, and you have a category that’s scientifically potent, scalable, and ESG gold,” he mentioned rightly. “Mushroom coffee epitomizes coffee’s Fourth Wave: after mass-market instant, specialty chains, and artisanal origin brews, the next era emphasizes personalization, functionality, and sustainability. DXN pioneered this shift, and today’s brands scale it for wellness-conscious consumers, transforming the morning ritual into a daily health ritual.” —- Jashid Hameed, Founder, Nuvedo Mushroom coffee is leading the charge. Picture your daily cup — rich, aromatic, and comforting — but engineered for a steady, sustained energy boost without jitters or crashes. “Dismiss mushroom coffee as a wellness gimmick and you’d be wrong. The science is real “, mentioned Ashish D'abreo, Founder, Maverick & Farmer Coffee Roasters.” Lion’s Mane supports neurogenesis, memory, focus, and gut health. Reishi nicknamed the “mushroom of immortality”—is backed by research for immunity, stress modulation, and metabolic support. Together, these mushrooms elevate coffee into something closer to a therapeutic beverage than a caffeine hit. For consumers increasingly seeking daily rituals that double as health interventions, this is a breakthrough,” he advocated. This is not fluff. This is strategy meeting science in a cup. In words of Oli Genn-Bash, Founder at The Fungi Consultant; Former President, UKC Psychedelics Society,” "The rise in functional mushroom beverages such as teas and coffees has been a useful way for people to experience the benefits of these fungi. Rather than just taking them in a capsule form like other supplements, consumers have the opportunity to integrate different mushrooms into their lives just like a regular tea or coffee, but with extra benefits! The main thing to look out for is the quality of the mushroom which is being used in the tea or coffee, the type of extraction method used for the mushrooms, and ensuring that there's a decent dose per serving of tea or coffee." Market Scale: Niche Today, Poised for Expansion The functional beverage market is massive, generating hundreds of billions globally, yet the hot-drink segment — spanning mushroom teas and coffees, matcha, kombucha, and adaptogens — remains a constellation of high-growth niches. Mushroom beverages are leading this charge, propelled by wellness routines and rising demand for cognitive focus, stress modulation, and immune support. “Mushroom coffee is where the functional beverage category grows up,” Jashid argues. “It’s not just a lifestyle flex; it’s 700-plus peer-reviewed studies in a cup. Erinacines and Hericenones in Lion’s Mane promote cognitive health, Triterpenoids in Reishi help regulate stress, and Cordycepin in Cordyceps boosts energy and stamina. Unlike plant-based or fermented competitors, mushrooms deliver a suite of synergistic bioactives that go far beyond a single functional claim. Unlike matcha or kombucha, it fits into the world’s most ingrained habit — the morning coffee ritual — without asking consumers to change behavior.” The global mushroom drinks market is projected to grow from $4.0 billion in 2024 to $7.4 billion by 2034 at a 6.4 per cent CAGR, led by mushroom coffee (49 per cent share) and powdered formats (65 per cent). Hypermarkets and supermarkets account for most sales, while North America dominates with 47 per cent of the market (~$1.8 billion). Mushroom tea, though smaller, mirrors these growth dynamics across North America, Europe, and parts of Asia, driven by DTC subscriptions, premium grocery placement, and café integration. “Reishi for calm, Lion’s Mane for focus, Cordyceps for energy, and Turkey Tail for immunity — what once felt niche is becoming a daily ritual of renewal “, states Dr Anish Hiresha Verma, Founder & CEO, Hi Shroomz™.” Our vision is simple yet bold: to reach a million patients and families in five years, transforming recovery into resilience in a $30 billion functional foods industry ready for reinvention,” he added. “Mushroom coffee is more than a trend—its medicinal extracts are grounded in decades of research. Yet the category remains fragile. To become coffee’s Fourth Wave, delivering daily health benefits, brands must tackle awareness, affordability, and authenticity. The science is solid; now the industry must earn consumer trust.” — Ashish D'abreo, Founder, Maverick & Farmer Coffee Roasters Matcha has capitalized on ceremonial heritage, antioxidant science, and premiumization trends, reaching $3.67 billion in 2025, with forecasts of $6.22 billion by 2030 at a 6.56 per cent CAGR. Regionally, the Asia Pacific held 45 per cent of 2024 value, while North America posts the fastest growth at 7.74 per cent CAGR. Kombucha, a more mature functional segment, saw the Asia Pacific market at $2.6 billion in 2023, projected to hit $4.94 billion by 2030 at a 9.6 per cent CAGR, driven by probiotic efficacy and social-lifestyle positioning. In emerging markets, India’s mushroom drinks market grew to $121.2 million in 2024, expected to reach $214.3 million by 2030, signaling expanding wellness adoption. Mushroom drinks uniquely combine nootropic and adaptogenic effects, delivering a multi-functional profile unmatched by single-ingredient alternatives. Taken together, the hot functional-drink ecosystem could scale into the low tens of billions within a decade, but growth depends on habit formation, not novelty. While coffee is daily and tea ritualistic, mushroom beverages remain “curiosity purchases.” Scaling will require flavor optimization, functional formulation, packaging innovation, subscriptions, and café integration. Jashid hence, leaves no doubt about the verdict: “Kombucha is a lifestyle statement, Matcha is a premium splurge, but mushroom coffee is the first functional beverage that can actually go mainstream. It’s not a fad — it’s the category’s endgame.” Consumer Appeal, Product Logic, and B2B Distribution Dynamics Mushroom beverages occupy a unique position in the functional hot-drink ecosystem, delivering value to both consumers and B2B partners. Consumer appeal stems from their functional diversity: Lion’s Mane enhances cognitive clarity, focus, and memory; Reishi supports immune health, stress reduction, and restorative sleep; and Chaga provides antioxidant and long-term wellness benefits. This versatility enables multi-occasion consumption: mushroom coffees for a morning cognitive lift, midday blends for focus rituals, and evening teas for relaxation and recovery. “And yet, for all this promise, mushroom coffee remains an afterthought in the functional beverage aisle. Consumer awareness is abysmally low. Ask an average coffee drinker about Reishi or Lion’s Mane, and you’ll likely get a blank stare”, added D’abreo. “Compare this with kombucha or matcha, which have managed to become lifestyle statements, and the gap is obvious. Mushroom coffee, by contrast, is still the preserve of wellness enthusiasts and biohacking circles. The result is a category with great science but almost no mainstream cultural relevance, “ he remarked. “Functional mushroom beverages—teas and coffees—allow consumers to enjoy fungi benefits beyond capsules, integrating them into daily routines like any regular drink. Success depends on mushroom quality, extraction methods, and ensuring a sufficient dose per serving to deliver meaningful health effects.” —- Oli Genn-Bash, Founder at The Fungi Consultant ; Former President, UKC Psychedelics Society For B2B partners — cafés, wellness retailers, subscription platforms, and corporate wellness programs — these touchpoints create opportunities to integrate mushroom beverages across daily routines, generating repeat purchases and cross-selling potential rather than relegating products to niche moments. Formats reinforce this: powders and sachets enable flexible dosing, low shipping costs, and subscription-based revenue; RTDs cater to grab-and-go convenience, albeit with cold-chain considerations; and capsules or wellness shots emphasize clinical validation and precise dosing, appealing to specialty retailers and corporate programs. “ Mushroom Coffee is more than a beverage — it is a movement that combines the richness of premium Arabica coffee with the proven benefits of medicinal mushrooms like Lion’s Mane, Oyster, Turkey Tail, and Milky. Packed with antioxidants, vitamin D, polysaccharides, and minerals, it delivers sustained energy, mental clarity, and stress relief without the crash of conventional coffee “, mentioned Lalu Thomas, Founder, Chefbae Mushroom Products Pvt Ltd. “By partnering with Kollam Krishi Vigyan Kendra, we directly support over 100 mushroom farmers with assured demand, fair pricing, and technical guidance, turning every cup into a catalyst for rural prosperity, ” he added. Distribution channels closely reflect these formats. Mushroom coffee thrives in specialty grocery aisles, subscription DTC platforms, and e-commerce channels, while mushroom teas are often positioned in premium tea shops, wellness-focused retailers, and experimental café menus. For B2B partners, aligning the product format with the intended consumer occasion is critical: a morning mushroom latte must deliver a coffee-like sensory experience to ensure habitual substitution, while evening teas must evoke relaxation to justify secondary placement or cross-sell opportunities in wellness assortments. Matcha mirrors mushroom coffee in cognitive benefits, offering a “calm-alertness” effect through L-theanine and caffeine, with strong appeal in ceremonial, café, and at-home rituals. Kombucha, by contrast, targets social and lifestyle occasions, leveraging probiotic efficacy, effervescence, and grab-and-go convenience to attract younger, wellness-oriented consumers. In sum, mushroom beverages, matcha, and kombucha combine functional differentiation, sensory appeal, and format versatility, creating opportunities for B2B partners to embed these drinks into multiple daily consumption moments, converting curiosity into habitual use and driving sustainable growth. Pricing, Margins, and Retail Dynamics Mushroom beverages occupy a premium niche in the hot-drink market, with prices reflecting functional potency, novelty, and production complexity. Pricing is shaped by format, ingredient quality, production scale, and consumer perception. Powders and sachets are the margin winners: low shipping weight, long shelf life, and flexible dosing make them cost-efficient to produce. When paired with subscription-based DTC platforms, they stabilize cash flow, boost customer lifetime value, and give B2B partners predictable demand and co-branding opportunities. RTD mushroom coffees and teas target urban convenience but carry higher costs. Cold-chain logistics, short shelf life, and premium packaging compress margins, making retail partnerships and precise inventory management critical. Positioning RTDs as functional café alternatives or wellness grab-and-go beverages enables premium pricing, but scaling requires operational rigor. Café integration is both a revenue driver and brand builder. Mushroom lattes and teas can command higher per-serving prices by merging ritual with health benefit — but flavour fidelity is non-negotiable. A latte must deliver the sensory satisfaction of coffee first, or repeat sales falter. Finally, retail placement is strategy in action. Hybrid positioning — wellness-adjacent but coffee-compatible — maximizes discovery and habitual adoption, turning mushroom beverages from novelty into daily ritual. “Reishi for calm, Lion’s Mane for focus, Cordyceps for energy, and Turkey Tail for immunity — what once felt niche is becoming a daily ritual of renewal. Our vision is simple yet bold: to reach a million patients and families in five years, transforming recovery into resilience in a $30 billion functional foods industry ready for reinvention .” —- Dr Anish Hiresha Verma, Founder & CEO, Hi Shroomz™ Then there’s ingredient economics. “But here’s the twist. High-quality mushroom extracts—dual-extracted and standardized for bioactive content—don’t come cheap”, discussed D’abreo. “That translates into retail prices often double or triple those of regular coffee. For most consumers, mushroom coffee isn’t a daily ritual; it’s a luxury splurge. Unless brands can crack affordability without compromising efficacy, mushroom coffee risks being pigeonholed as yet another elitist wellness trend rather than a true global beverage movement ,’’ he stated. However, the sharpest warning shot comes from the trust front: “The biggest threat to mushroom coffee isn’t competition — it’s credibility,” warns D’abreo. “Too many blends are dusted with trace amounts of mushrooms just to make a label claim. That’s not innovation — that’s marketing theater. The winners will be the ones who go all-in on transparency: standardized extracts, third-party testing, and clear dosing. Fail that test, and mushroom coffee risks becoming the next overhyped superfood that burns bright and dies fast.” “Packed with antioxidants, vitamin D, polysaccharides, minerals, and proteins, Mushroom Coffee boosts overall well-being. Regular intake supports immunity, reduces stress, and enhances mental clarity, focus, and memory. Its low-caffeine formula delivers sustained energy without overstimulation, making it ideal for health-conscious consumers seeking balance, vitality, and mindful daily performance.” —- Lalu Thomas, Founder, Chefbae Mushroom Products Pvt Ltd In sum, mushroom beverages’ pricing architecture balances functional efficacy, production complexity, and consumer expectations. Successful brands optimize across powders for DTC, RTDs for convenience, and café offerings for experience, while employing strategic retail placement. For B2B partners, mastering these dynamics is critical: consistent, scalable delivery of premium, functional beverages underpins profitability and long-term category growth. Bottom Line Mushroom tea and coffee sit at a rare crossroads of ritual, wellness, and functional performance. They are more than beverages—they are daily tools for focus, immunity, and relaxation. The market opportunity is immense, but success is not guaranteed by novelty alone. Winning brands will treat efficacy as precision engineering, supply chains as strategic assets, and sustainability as a core competitive advantage. The real prize lies in habit formation: converting curious first-time sippers into loyal, repeat consumers. Those who master the balance of taste, functional benefit, and convenience will scale from niche experimentation to mainstream beverage culture. Brands that chase trends without scientific validation, operational rigor, or supply certainty risk joining the graveyard of boutique functional drinks that burned bright but disappeared just as fast. The mushroom beverage revolution isn’t coming — it’s already here. The real question is who will win the battle for consumer loyalty in this nascent $1.5 billion category that’s primed for exponential growth. In the words of Jashid, “Mushroom coffee is the Fourth Wave of coffee — not just a better brew, but a smarter one. If the First Wave was about access, the Second Wave about experience, and the Third Wave about craftsmanship, the Fourth Wave is about outcomes. Today’s consumers aren’t just chasing flavor; they want coffee that fuels clarity, strengthens their inner shield, and aligns with a conscious, future-forward lifestyle. DXN planted the seed years ago, but now customers are watching brands scale it into a global wellness movement — we’re not just selling coffee, we’re selling cognitive resilience in a cup.” ---- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3312/spotify-for-kitchens-daniel-baven-on-future-of-digital-food-hubs.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3312/spotify-for-kitchens-daniel-baven-on-future-of-digital-food-hubs.html Thu, 09 Oct 2025 12:08:23 +0530 In an exclusive AgroSpectrum and NUFFOODS Spectrum Asia interview, Daniel Baven, CEO and Co-founder of Noahs, unveils how his company is turning everyday convenience stores into digital food hubs — the new crossroads of food, tech, and community. With its plug-and-play platform, Noahs lets retailers “stream” culinary brands like Spotify streams music, giving chefs global reach and consumers fresh, data-driven dining experiences on demand. The results speak volumes — Q8 stations powered by Noahs saw food sales surge 374 per cent and basket sizes climb 228 per cent. Unlike ghost kitchens or delivery aggregators, Noahs taps into existing retail kitchens, transforming them into profitable, AI-ready food networks overnight. Baven predicts that by 2030, food will replace fuel as the heartbeat of convenience retail — Noahs will be the invisible engine powering that revolution. Section I: Vision & Market Disruption Reimagining C-Stores: What inspired you to launch Noahs, and why is now the inflection point for reinventing convenience retail? The spark for Noahs came from watching how every major content industry—music, film, travel—has gone through its streaming revolution. Food hasn’t. Yet we have millions of kitchens sitting in prime retail locations, underutilized and disconnected from the digital economy. We saw an opportunity to turn those kitchens into digital food hubs. The real inflection point is convergence: consumers expect convenience, platforms demand supply, and retailers need new revenue streams to replace declining categories like tobacco and fuel. Convenience stores are sitting on the infrastructure of the future—they just need the operating system. That’s what Noahs provides. Digital-First Food Revolution: With the C-store market set to surpass $1T by 2029, how do you see technology reshaping the future of food retail? We’re standing on the edge of a complete reset. In five years, most people won’t cook at home the way they do today. It will simply make more sense to tap into a network of nearby retailers streaming great food, made fresh, faster, and cheaper than a home kitchen could ever compete with. Convenience stores and supermarkets are sitting on the most valuable real estate of the future — the crossroads of local communities. When those spaces go digital, they’ll stop being “shops” and start becoming marketplace hubs for food, experiences, and daily life. Technology is the enabler, but the change is cultural. It’s about food creators having a new stage, communities having new choices, and retailers becoming the backbone of the next food economy. Noahs was built exactly for that — to power this transformation and give retailers the tools to move from analogue to intelligent, from transactional to experiential. What’s coming is bigger than food tech. It’s a reinvention of how food exists in society. Section II: The Noahs Model – Technology + Brand + Kitchen Plug-and-Play Platform: Your tech platform can digitize a store with just a Wi-Fi connection. What makes this solution scalable across global chains with different IT maturity levels? The secret is simplicity. Most retailers are trapped in heavy legacy systems that make every new integration a nightmare. We flipped that logic. Noahs runs as a layer on top of existing infrastructure, connecting to what’s already there instead of trying to replace it. That means a store can go live in hours — not months — with zero capex and no new labor. The system plugs into delivery aggregators, POS systems, kitchen screens, and loyalty tools. The moment it connects to Wi-Fi, the store becomes part of a digital network that can sell, operate, and analyze in real time. It’s built for diversity. Whether it’s a gas station in Denmark, a supermarket in Belgium, or a convenience store in the Philippines, the platform automatically adapts to local tech setups and market conditions. That’s why it scales — because it doesn’t force uniformity, it enables it. Noahs is not just a tool; it’s a translator between the analogue world and the digital food economy. It’s what the retailers has been looking for, but it didn’t exist until now. Spotify for Kitchens: You’ve called Noahs’ Brand Platform a “Spotify for Kitchens,” letting retailers stream proven brands and menus directly into their stores. How do you curate the catalogue, and what data drives menu updates? We’re building a world where food moves like music. In the same way streaming opened a global stage for artists, we believe culinary creators will soon reach audiences anywhere — not through physical expansion, but through digital distribution. A chef in Copenhagen could see their tacos sold in Dubai the same week. That’s the future we’re shaping with Noahs. Our brand platform is the foundation for that future. It lets retailers activate proven food concepts directly into their stores, adapting to local tastes and neighborhoods instead of being locked into a single global brand deal. That flexibility is what the industry has been missing — agility, creativity, and cultural relevance. This shift also enables a complete rework of the food supply chain — simplifying how ingredients, inventory, and production flow through the system. It creates a feedback loop between real-time demand and supply, throttling production, reducing waste, and preparing the industry to fully harness AI. We’re still early in this journey, but the vision is clear: menus that evolve like playlists, brands that scale without borders, and a supply chain that finally moves as intelligently as the data behind it. For culinary entrepreneurs, it’s a new way to monetize creativity. For retailers, it’s the chance to become curators of food culture — not just sellers of products. That’s what “Spotify for Kitchens” really means: a living, breathing ecosystem where food, data, and creativity stream together. Modular Smart Kitchens: Your kitchens range from 1 to 20 m². How do you ensure operational efficiency, quality control, and food safety across distributed sites? The next decade will blur the line between retail and hospitality. We believe the world’s biggest food operators won’t be restaurant chains — they’ll be retailers. To make that leap, retailers will recruit from the culinary world, bringing in chefs, kitchen managers, and operational talent who can run hospitality at scale. What used to be a store will evolve into a network of kitchens, each designed for efficiency, consistency, and speed — powered by technology, not tradition. Noahs is the platform that enables this transformation. We don’t operate the kitchens — we power them. Our system acts as the operating layer that keeps every recipe, process, and temperature consistent across hundreds of locations. Retailers become the operators; Noahs becomes their digital backbone. On the hardware side, we’ve developed a full suite of modular kitchens — from compact 1 m² single-brand setups to 20 m² multi-brand environments for service stations, food courts, and supermarket delis. These units are engineered for throughput, safety, and profitability, with built-in monitoring and data loops that ensure every kitchen runs to the same standard. We also anticipate a wave of cross-company innovation in this space — robotics, automated production, drone delivery, and robotaxis changing the future states of the hardware component. Restaurant kitchens, as we know them today, simply can’t compete with that model. A Noahs-powered multi-brand kitchen can serve multiple food concepts with a fraction of the space, labor, and cost — while maintaining higher quality and consistency. That’s the future we see unfolding. Section III: Business Impact & Results Q8 Case Study: The Q8 transformation saw food sales jump 374 per cent and basket size rise 228 per cent. Which parts of the Noahs model (tech, brands, kitchens) drove the biggest lift? Those numbers from Q8 aren’t isolated results — they’re a preview of what happens when retail locations evolve through Noahs’ three-layer model. Every site that connects our technology platform, brand platform, and modular kitchens can experience a similar transformation. The tech layer creates instant digital access and operational visibility. The brand layer adds proven food concepts that attract new customers and expand sales channels. And the kitchen layer converts that demand into consistent, scalable output with an engine fit for the purpose. In the quoted Q8 case, all three layers came together at once — which is why the impact was so dramatic. But in most rollouts, we see a natural progression: first digitalize existing shop catalogues, then layer in easy-to-operate brands suited to the current store format, and finally scale through modular smart-kitchens and more advanced brand concepts. Each layer amplifies the next. What Q8 showed is that this isn’t theory — it’s the future playbook for every retailer. Service stations, supermarkets, and convenience stores can all become high-performing food hubs simply by activating the system step by step. The model works anywhere, because it’s built for the way people live now — connected, on-demand, and expecting quality food wherever they are. ROI & Adoption Curve: How quickly can retailers expect payback when adopting Noahs, and how do you help de-risk the investment decision? The short answer: fast. Because Noahs requires no upfront investment in new labor or capex, most retailers see positive returns within the first few months of activation. The payback curve depends on the depth of adoption — tech alone delivers immediate efficiency and access to new revenue channels, while layering in brands and kitchens compounds the effect. But beyond ROI, what really de-risks adoption is our model itself. We don’t ask retailers to change who they are — we enhance what’s already there. Noahs plugs into existing infrastructure and workflows, building value on top of current systems instead of replacing them. We also start small. A single pilot location can validate the impact before scaling to dozens or hundreds. The data from those first sites creates a clear business case — not projections, but proof. Retailers everywhere are under pressure to reinvent fast, but the risk tolerance is low. Our approach makes innovation incremental, measurable, and cash-positive from day one. That’s why Noahs scales — it rewards courage without demanding blind faith. Section IV: Competitive Landscape & Future of Food-Tech Standing Out in a Crowded Space: How does Noahs differentiate from ghost kitchens, Q-commerce players, and aggregator-led solutions? Ghost kitchens and Q-commerce were great experiments — but they’re built on isolated infrastructure. Each new location means new costs, new staff, and new risk. Aggregators, on the other hand, built digital demand but not digital supply — they own the customers, not the kitchens. Noahs connects the dots. We’re not building more kitchens; we’re activating the millions that already exist inside retailers. Instead of competing with delivery platforms, we empower retailers to integrate directly with them — turning stores into digital food hubs that can sell across every channel instantly. Where ghost kitchens chase scale through real estate, Noahs achieves it through connectivity. Where Q-commerce promises speed, we deliver sustainability — a model that actually works economically for both retailers and creators. Most importantly, we’re not just solving delivery — we’re reinventing food infrastructure. We give retailers the OS, brands, and hardware they need to own their role in the digital food economy. The future of food won’t belong to aggregators or ghost kitchens — it’ll belong to the platforms that make everyone else scalable. That’s where Noahs sits. 2025 Trends: What’s next for food-tech—robotic kitchens, AI menu personalization, functional food boom? Which of these will most affect the C-store ecosystem? The short answer? Noahs. Beyond that, it’s too early to expect any real leapfrogs in robotics. The robotics we see today are impressive, but they’re trapped between eras — built for a world that’s already shifting beneath them. The real step change will come when humanoid robots, like the ones Tesla and Figure are developing, can integrate naturally into existing operations. That’s a 2030 story, not 2025. The real 2025 trend in food will be the convergence of retailers into food — moving away from being simple convenience hubs to becoming food operators in their own right. That shift will ignite the most dramatic transformation the industry has seen in decades. AI will play a major role, but not yet in the way most imagine. Everyone’s talking about AI, but its real power depends on something far more fundamental: digitization. That’s what Noahs is building — the digital foundation that makes the intelligent food economy possible. Section V: Scaling & Strategy Geographic Expansion: Which regions outside Denmark and Thailand are next on your radar—and what makes a market “Noahs-ready”? Officially, we’re now expanding in 4 countries - Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Ireland. Within 2026, we expect to announce at least ten more countries across three continents joining the Noahs platform. We are currently preparing the best we can to meet the increasing demand for our solution. A market becomes “Noahs-ready” when retailers recognize that the old model no longer works — when rising costs, labor shortages, and changing customer behavior force a rethink of what retail really is. Europe is leading that shift. High operational costs and rapid transformation are pushing retailers to act faster than ever, and we’re positioned to help them do it in a scalable, low-risk way. Being Noahs-ready isn’t only about geography and necessity — it’s also about mindset. The retailers who will win this decade are the ones willing to reimagine themselves as food operators. That’s where our platform fits in: as the bridge between today’s analogue retail world and tomorrow’s fast paced food economy. Capital & Investors: Are you seeking growth capital, and if so, what kind of investors (VC, strategic, corporate) best align with your vision? We are currently finalizing our latest seed round and are well-capitalized for the current growth phase. Our next major raise — a Series A — is planned for 2026, and preparations are already underway. Right now, our focus is execution and scale. That said, we’re always open to conversations with investors who see what we see — those who understand that the future of food isn’t about building more restaurants, but about enabling the platforms that connect them. The best fit for us are partners who bring more than capital — those who share the vision of redefining food infrastructure globally and can accelerate that journey through strategic reach, technology, or market access. Vision 2030: Paint us a picture: what does a Noahs-enabled convenience store look like in 2030, and what share of its revenue will come from food vs. fuel? By 2030, the traditional service station will be unrecognizable. The era of fuel as the defining anchor is ending — what comes next will be built around food, experiences, and premium retail. We’re already seeing early signs of that leapfrog. Elon Musk’s new Tesla Diner is a perfect example — a glimpse of how technology, design, and hospitality can fuse into something people actually want to visit. That’s what excites me: not a finished blueprint, but the open canvas ahead. I prefer not to lock in a final vision. The real innovation will come from collaboration — from working with retailers, chefs, designers, and local communities to build places that fit their rhythm. Some will focus on food and digital ordering, others on community spaces or hybrid retail experiences. The beauty is that the platform allows for all of it. What I do know is that the transformation is imminent, and food will be the catalyst that starts it. Once retailers take that step, everything else follows — design, operations, social experiences, even how we define “convenience.” Over time, Noahs will simply become part of that ecosystem — the invisible layer powering whatever comes next. The real story won’t be about us. It’ll be about how retailers use this opportunity to reinvent what it means to serve their communities. ---- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3311/unnati-unleashed-brio-hydroponics-charts-indias-climate-smart-farming-future.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3311/unnati-unleashed-brio-hydroponics-charts-indias-climate-smart-farming-future.html Wed, 08 Oct 2025 19:00:22 +0530 In this exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Pravin Patel, Founder of Brio Hydroponics, shares how the Unnati project—a 100-acre hydroponics park in Gujarat—is poised to transform Indian agriculture from niche experimentation to mainstream, climate-smart farming. Patel discusses how Brio’s pioneering Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) system combines global technology with local adaptation to deliver year-round, resource-efficient, high-quality produce. He highlights how Unnati not only boosts profitability for investors and farmers but also serves as a training and technology hub, enabling knowledge transfer across the country. The conversation underscores hydroponics’ potential to address climate volatility, water scarcity, and food security while creating scalable, modular solutions for smallholder farmers. Brio’s vision, Patel notes, is to position India as a global leader in sustainable agriculture by 2035, setting new benchmarks for innovation, exports, and farmer-first growth. Redefining Indian Agriculture: From Niche to Mainstream Hydroponics in India is still seen as niche compared to traditional farming. With the launch of Unnati, a 100-acre park, how do you see this project shifting perceptions—and what does it mean for the mainstreaming of soil-less farming in India? Hydroponics in India has traditionally been viewed as an expensive, niche technology primarily suited for urban enthusiasts and high-end commercial ventures. This perception stems from several factors: limited awareness among farmers, high initial capital requirements, and the dominance of traditional soil-based farming practices that have sustained Indian agriculture for millennia. However, this narrative is rapidly changing as water scarcity, climate volatility, and declining soil health create urgent demands for innovative agricultural solutions. Unnati as a Catalyst for Change The launch of Unnati, Brio Hydroponics' 100-acre park in Talod, Sabarkantha district, represents a strategic inflection point in shifting perceptions around soil-less farming. By demonstrating hydroponics at commercial scale rather than experimental plots, Unnati addresses the primary skepticism around scalability and economic viability. The project's scale brings multiple advantages: economies of production, market dominance in premium fresh produce categories, and the ability to showcase consistent, high-quality output regardless of seasonal variations. Pravin Patel, Founder of Brio Hydroponics, emphasizes that "Unnati is not just a park; it's a movement towards climate-smart agriculture. By integrating our CEA system with global best practices, we aim to liberate farmers from weather uncertainties". This positioning transforms hydroponics from a technology solution to a comprehensive agricultural philosophy that prioritizes sustainability, predictability, and profitability. Structural Changes Driving Adoption Several structural factors are accelerating the mainstream adoption of hydroponics in India. First, the increasing urbanization and growing middle-class demand for pesticide-free, fresh produce creates robust market pull. Second, government policy support through initiatives like the National Horticulture Mission and subsidies covering up to 50 per cent of hydroponic capital costs lower entry barriers. Third, the integration of digital technologies—IoT sensors, automated nutrient delivery, and AI-driven monitoring—makes hydroponic systems more accessible to farmers who previously lacked technical expertise. The Indian hydroponics market is projected to grow from $ 263.1 million in 2024 to $ 2,227 million by 2035, reflecting a robust CAGR of 21.43 per cent. This explosive growth trajectory indicates that hydroponics is transitioning from experimental technology to mainstream agricultural practice, driven by both necessity and opportunity. Indian Hydroponics Market Growth Projection (2024-2035) showing explosive growth from $ 263.1 million to $ 2,227 million with 21.43 per cent CAGR From Innovation to Scale: Deploying Breakthrough CEA Technology Brio pioneered the world’s first Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) system. How does Unnati deploy this breakthrough differently, and what scale efficiencies can it unlock for India’s agriculture economy? Brio Hydroponics has pioneered the world's first Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) system, which represents a fundamental breakthrough in precision farming technology. Unlike conventional hydroponics that focuses primarily on soil-less cultivation, Brio's CEA system integrates multiple environmental variables—temperature, humidity, CO₂ concentration, light spectrum, airflow, and nutrient delivery—into a unified, automated platform that optimizes plant growth at every stage. The CEA system deployed at Unnati differs significantly from traditional greenhouse operations. It incorporates global technologies sourced from France, Israel, and New Zealand, specifically adapted for Indian climatic conditions. These technologies include advanced automated irrigation systems, sophisticated climate control mechanisms, and precision nutrient delivery systems that work in harmony to maintain optimal growing conditions throughout the year, irrespective of external weather fluctuations. Scale Efficiencies and Economic Impact Unnati's 100-acre scale unlocks multiple efficiency advantages that smaller hydroponic operations cannot achieve. The infrastructure supports 100 individual hydroponic structures of one acre each, creating an industrial-grade production ecosystem. This scale enables bulk procurement of inputs, standardized operational procedures, and centralized processing and distribution systems that dramatically reduce per-unit production costs. The economic benefits extend beyond cost reduction to revenue optimization. Unnati's strategic tie-ups with retailers, e-commerce platforms, and export channels ensure that produce reaches premium markets quickly and at optimal pricing. The park's integrated business model projects Internal Rate of Return (IRR) between 18-24 per cent annually, making it attractive for both institutional and retail investors. Scale efficiencies also manifest in technology deployment and maintenance. Centralized monitoring systems can oversee multiple growing units simultaneously, reducing labor requirements while improving precision. Automated systems for irrigation, nutrient dosing, and climate control operate more efficiently when managing larger volumes, creating economies of scale that make the technology economically viable for broader adoption. Technology Transfer and Knowledge Creation Beyond immediate production benefits, Unnati serves as a technology transfer hub that demonstrates how advanced CEA systems can be replicated across different regions and scales. The project's success in its initial 30 acres under cultivation provides concrete evidence of technology viability, yield improvements, and economic returns that can be communicated to potential adopters. Brio's Center of Excellence in Gandhinagar has already trained over 500 agripreneurs, significantly enhancing agricultural skills and creating a knowledge ecosystem around hydroponic farming. This knowledge creation function becomes even more critical at Unnati's scale, where the park can serve as a demonstration site for farmers, investors, and policymakers to observe commercial-scale hydroponic operations. Hydroponics vs Traditional Farming: Key Performance Metrics Comparison showing revolutionary improvements in resource efficiency Investor Confidence in Agri-Tech: Making Hydroponics Profitable and Attractive Your early investors highlight transparency, trust, and strong returns as key drivers. How do you make hydroponics, traditionally a capital-intensive venture, both profitable and attractive for institutional and retail investors in India? Hydroponics has traditionally been perceived as a capital-intensive venture with uncertain returns, creating significant barriers for both institutional and retail investors. Brio Hydroponics addresses this challenge through multiple innovative approaches that transform the investment proposition from high-risk speculation to predictable, asset-backed returns. The company's fintech investment platform, launched in 2024, represents India's first digital fixed-return investment platform specifically tailored for the Controlled Environment Agriculture sector. This platform offers investors fixed, assured returns of up to 18 per cent per annum, exemplified by an investment of Rs 10 lakhs yielding Rs 1.8 lakhs annually. The platform has rapidly gained traction, attracting over 125 investors and demonstrating robust confidence in sustainable agricultural practices. Transparency and Trust Mechanisms Investor confidence in Brio Hydroponics stems from the company's commitment to transparency, professional execution, and proven track record. Rajesh Mehta, an Unnati investor, states: "What I value most is trust and assurance. Brio Hydroponics has consistently delivered both with professionalism, transparency, and a proven track record that gave me complete confidence". This trust is built through several mechanisms: Performance Reporting: Regular performance reports and transparent financial disclosures provide investors with real-time insights into their investments. A dedicated investor dashboard offers continuous visibility into farm operations, yield data, and financial performance, fostering trust and ongoing engagement. Agri-Partnership Model: The alignment of investor returns with farm performance ensures that both parties are motivated to achieve excellence in agricultural productivity. This partnership approach transforms investors from passive capital providers to active stakeholders in agricultural success. Proven Track Record: Brio's successful hydroponics projects for major corporate clients including Welspun Group and Adani Group demonstrate the company's capability to execute large-scale, complex agricultural projects. Risk Mitigation and Return Optimization The Unnati model incorporates several risk mitigation strategies that make hydroponics attractive for institutional and retail investors. The cluster-based farming system managed by seasoned professionals at Brio Hydroponics reduces operational risks while ensuring consistent quality and output. Climate-controlled environments eliminate weather-related crop losses, while integrated pest management systems minimize disease and pest risks. Market risk is addressed through diversified crop portfolios focusing on premium categories such as leafy greens, herbs, and exotic vegetables that command higher prices and have growing demand in urban markets. Strategic partnerships with retailers and export channels provide assured market access and pricing stability. The company's ambitious target to raise Rs 100 crores through its investment platform within the first year demonstrates significant investor appetite for structured agri-tech investments. This capital will support the development of additional hi-tech farming projects across India, creating a scalable model for sustainable agriculture investment. Climate and Food Security: Addressing India's Dual Challenge Climate and Food Security: You’ve often spoken about freeing farmers from weather uncertainty. How can hydroponics-based systems like Unnati address India’s dual challenge of climate volatility and food security—and is there a risk of this becoming a solution only for high-value crops rather than staples? India's agricultural sector faces unprecedented challenges from climate volatility, with erratic rainfall patterns, prolonged droughts, and extreme weather events becoming increasingly common. Traditional farming methods, dependent on monsoon cycles and seasonal patterns, leave farmers highly vulnerable to weather uncertainties that can devastate entire crop cycles and rural livelihoods. Research indicates that approximately 52-55 per cent of Indian farmers have no access to irrigation and depend entirely on rain-fed agriculture. This dependency becomes increasingly problematic as climate change intensifies rainfall variability, with longer dry spells followed by intense flooding periods that disrupt crop growth cycles. The Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) study found that 87 per cent of tehsils across India experienced decreased Southwest Monsoon rainfall during crucial Kharif crop sowing months from 1982 to 2022. Hydroponics as Climate Resilience Solution Controlled Environment Agriculture systems like those deployed at Unnati offer a compelling solution to climate-related agricultural risks. By creating fully controlled growing environments, hydroponic systems eliminate dependency on external weather conditions, enabling consistent, year-round production regardless of climatic variability. The technology's water efficiency is particularly crucial for India's water-stressed regions. Hydroponic systems use up to 90 per cent less water compared to traditional farming methods, making them especially valuable in drought-prone areas where water scarcity limits agricultural productivity. This efficiency is achieved through closed-loop systems that recycle nutrient solutions and eliminate water loss through soil percolation and evaporation. Climate-controlled environments also enable precise management of temperature, humidity, and CO₂ levels, optimizing plant growth conditions that would be impossible to achieve in open-field agriculture. This precision allows farmers to maintain consistent crop quality and yields even during extreme weather events that would devastate traditional farms. Food Security Implications and Staple Crop Considerations While hydroponic systems excel in producing high-value crops like leafy greens, herbs, and specialty vegetables, questions remain about their applicability to staple crops that form the foundation of Indian food security. Currently, most hydroponic operations focus on premium produce that commands higher market prices and provides better economic returns for the capital invested. However, this limitation may not necessarily represent a systemic failure. Hydroponics can contribute to food security through multiple pathways: Nutritional Enhancement: Premium crops grown hydroponically often have superior nutritional profiles and longer shelf lives, improving overall dietary quality. Market Segmentation: By serving premium market segments, hydroponics frees up traditional agricultural land for staple crop production, potentially improving overall resource allocation. Technology Evolution: As hydroponic technologies mature and costs decrease, applications to staple crops may become economically viable, particularly for crops requiring precise nutrient management. The integration of hydroponics with traditional farming systems creates complementary approaches rather than replacement scenarios. Farmers can use hydroponic systems for high-value cash crops while maintaining traditional cultivation for staple grains, diversifying their income sources and reducing overall risk exposure. Scaling Climate-Smart Solutions Brio's partnerships with institutions like Anand Agricultural University and IFFCO position the company to scale climate-smart agriculture solutions across diverse agricultural contexts. These partnerships enable research and development of hydroponic systems specifically adapted to Indian conditions, crop preferences, and farmer economics. The Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA) framework emphasizes three key objectives: increasing agricultural productivity, building resilience to climate change, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Hydroponic systems align with all three objectives by delivering higher yields per unit area, eliminating weather-related risks, and reducing the need for chemical inputs that contribute to environmental degradation. Global Technologies, Local Impact: Adapting International Solutions Unnati is deploying agri-technologies from France, Israel, and New Zealand. How do you ensure these global systems adapt to India’s local conditions—water availability, smallholder economics, and diverse crop demand? Unnati's deployment of agri-technologies from France, Israel, and New Zealand represents a sophisticated approach to technology transfer that balances global innovation with local adaptation. Rather than implementing foreign technologies wholesale, Brio Hydroponics has developed a localization strategy that adapts these systems to India's specific conditions, including water availability, climate variability, smallholder economics, and diverse crop demands. The partnership with Israeli firm Pic-Plant Ltd exemplifies this approach, introducing patented technologies such as rain protection systems, wire rope configurations, and triple-layer net houses that enable high-yield, superior-quality produce across all seasons. These technologies were specifically modified to address Indian climatic challenges, including high humidity, intense heat, and monsoon conditions that differ significantly from Mediterranean growing environments. French precision agriculture technologies contribute advanced nutrient delivery systems and automated climate control mechanisms that ensure optimal growing conditions. New Zealand's expertise in post-harvest processing, traceability systems, and export quality standards helps establish supply chain excellence that meets international market requirements. Addressing Local Conditions and Constraints India's water scarcity challenges require hydroponic systems to be exceptionally efficient in water usage. The technologies deployed at Unnati incorporate closed-loop water recycling systems that minimize waste and maximize efficiency. Advanced sensors monitor soil moisture, nutrient concentrations, and pH levels in real-time, enabling precise water and nutrient delivery that eliminates overwatering and nutrient runoff. The systems are designed to operate effectively with varying water quality conditions common in Indian agricultural regions. Water treatment and purification systems ensure that even brackish or mineral-heavy water sources can be used effectively, expanding the geographic areas where hydroponic systems can be deployed successfully. Smallholder Economics and Scalability Recognizing that over 86 per cent of Indian farmers operate plots smaller than two hectares, Brio's technology adaptation focuses on scalable solutions that can be economically viable at different scales. The modular design of hydroponic structures allows farmers to start with smaller installations and expand gradually as they gain experience and capital. The company's training programs and technical support systems address the skill requirements that often prevent smallholder farmers from adopting advanced technologies. By providing comprehensive training modules, ongoing technical assistance, and standardized operating procedures, Brio reduces the knowledge barriers that traditionally limit technology adoption among resource-constrained farmers. Diverse Crop Demand and Market Integration India's diverse culinary traditions and regional crop preferences require hydroponic systems to be adaptable to multiple crop types beyond the leafy greens and herbs commonly grown in other countries. Unnati's systems are configured to grow 28 different kinds of leafy greens and various vine crops including colored capsicums, cherry tomatoes, cucumbers, and French beans. This crop diversity requires sophisticated nutrient management systems that can adjust growing conditions for different plant families and growth stages. The integration of AI-driven monitoring and automated nutrient delivery enables precise management of these diverse crop requirements within the same facility. Technology Integration and Digital Infrastructure The adaptation of global technologies to Indian conditions involves significant integration with digital infrastructure and IoT systems. Unnati incorporates sensors for monitoring electrical conductivity, pH levels, temperature, and humidity, with wireless sensor nodes transmitting data to central control units for real-time monitoring and adjustments. This digital integration aligns with India's Digital Agriculture Mission and AgriStack infrastructure, creating synergies between private sector innovation and public sector digital platforms. The integration enables farmers to access satellite-based weather advisories, market information, and technical support through unified digital interfaces. Blockchain technology is being explored for supply chain transparency and traceability, enabling Unnati's produce to meet international export standards and command premium prices in global markets. This technological sophistication transforms Indian hydroponic produce from local agricultural products to globally competitive commodities. Partnerships as Growth Drivers: Scaling Through Collaboration With alliances like Anand Agricultural University and IFFCO, you’re building strong institutional linkages. What role do you see public–private partnerships playing in scaling hydroponics nationwide, and how do you plan to integrate smallholder farmers into this high-tech ecosystem? Brio Hydroponics' partnerships with Anand Agricultural University, IFFCO, and other institutions represent a strategic approach to scaling hydroponics technology across India's agricultural landscape. These partnerships provide multiple benefits: research and development capabilities, institutional credibility, access to farmer networks, and policy influence that facilitates technology adoption at scale. The collaboration with Anand Agricultural University, located in Gujarat's agricultural heartland, provides research expertise in crop sciences, soil health, and agricultural engineering. This partnership enables the development of region-specific hydroponic solutions that address local crop preferences, growing conditions, and farmer requirements. University research facilities support ongoing innovation in nutrient formulations, crop varieties, and system optimization. IFFCO's involvement brings significant advantages in terms of farmer outreach, input supply chains, and cooperative structure expertise. As one of India's largest fertilizer cooperatives, IFFCO has extensive networks reaching millions of farmers across the country. This partnership enables Brio to leverage existing distribution channels, farmer relationships, and cooperative structures to introduce hydroponic technologies at grassroots levels. Public-Private Partnership Model The public-private partnership approach adopted by Brio creates synergies between government policy objectives and private sector innovation capabilities. Government initiatives like the National Horticulture Mission, Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana, and subsidies for controlled environment agriculture provide policy support and financial incentives that reduce adoption barriers. These partnerships enable Brio to participate in government programs that provide technical assistance, financial subsidies, and market linkages to farmers adopting advanced agricultural technologies. The alignment with national agricultural policies ensures that Brio's expansion strategy supports broader government objectives of agricultural modernization, water conservation, and climate resilience. The integration with India's Digital Agriculture Mission creates opportunities for Brio's technologies to be incorporated into national digital infrastructure for agriculture. This integration can provide farmers with access to hydroponic technologies through existing government platforms, reducing the complexity and cost of technology adoption. Smallholder Integration Strategy Integrating smallholder farmers into high-tech hydroponic ecosystems requires careful attention to economic constraints, technical capabilities, and risk management preferences. Brio's approach involves multiple strategies designed to make advanced technologies accessible to resource-constrained farmers: Modular Technology Design: Hydroponic systems are designed in modular units that allow farmers to start with small installations and expand gradually. This approach reduces initial capital requirements while enabling farmers to gain experience and build confidence with the technology. Training and Capacity Building: Comprehensive training programs provide farmers with technical skills required for hydroponic operations. Brio's Training & Placement Assistance program offers two-week intensive training followed by ongoing technical support, ensuring farmers have the knowledge needed for successful operations. Financial Support and Risk Sharing: The fintech investment platform and agri-partnership models provide alternative financing mechanisms that reduce financial risks for smallholder farmers. Investors can provide capital while farmers contribute land and labor, sharing both risks and returns. Cooperative Integration: Working with existing farmer producer organizations (FPOs) and cooperative structures enables smallholder farmers to access hydroponic technologies collectively, sharing costs and risks while maintaining individual farming operations. Technology Transfer and Knowledge Dissemination Brio's partnership strategy includes significant emphasis on knowledge transfer and skill development. The Center of Excellence in Gandhinagar has trained over 500 agripreneurs, creating a network of skilled practitioners who can support technology diffusion across agricultural communities. This knowledge dissemination approach creates multiplier effects, where trained farmers become technology advocates and informal advisors for their communities. The demonstration effect of successful hydroponic operations encourages broader adoption while providing peer-to-peer learning opportunities that are often more effective than formal training programs. The partnerships also facilitate technology standardization and quality assurance, ensuring that hydroponic systems deployed across different regions maintain consistent performance standards. This standardization is crucial for scaling technology adoption while maintaining quality and economic viability. Beyond Gujarat: National and Global Expansion Strategy With Unnati now underway, what’s your national and global expansion strategy? Do you envision replicating this park model across states—or building smaller modular units that could integrate into farmer clusters? Brio Hydroponics' expansion strategy beyond Gujarat involves both replicating the large-scale park model and developing smaller, modular units that can integrate into existing farmer clusters. The success of Unnati's initial 30 acres under cultivation provides a proven template that can be adapted to different geographic and economic contexts across India. The company has already acquired land for expansion projects, including 36 acres near Mumbai with potential scaling to 60 acres, demonstrating commitment to geographic diversification. This expansion strategy focuses on proximity to major urban centers where demand for premium, pesticide-free produce is highest and supply chain logistics can be optimized. The expansion approach recognizes that different regions have varying requirements based on climate conditions, water availability, crop preferences, and market dynamics. Rather than implementing identical systems, Brio adapts its core CEA technology platform to local conditions while maintaining standardized operational procedures and quality standards. Modular Integration Strategy Beyond large-scale parks, Brio is developing smaller modular units designed to integrate into existing farmer clusters and cooperative structures. This approach addresses the reality that most Indian farmers operate small plots and may not have the capital or inclination to participate in large-scale commercial operations. Modular systems can be deployed at village levels, serving clusters of 10-20 farmers who collectively invest in hydroponic infrastructure while maintaining individual farming operations. This approach leverages existing social structures and cooperative traditions while introducing advanced agricultural technologies. The modular approach also enables faster deployment and lower per-unit capital requirements, making hydroponic technology accessible to a broader range of farmers and geographic locations. Standardized modules can be manufactured centrally and assembled locally, reducing costs and complexity while maintaining quality standards. International Expansion and Export Focus Brio's international expansion strategy includes both technology export and produce export components. The company has already established operations in the Maldives and is finalizing projects in Mauritius and the Caribbean islands. This international expansion leverages India's growing reputation in agricultural technology and Brio's proven expertise in tropical and subtropical growing conditions. The export strategy focuses on regions where water scarcity, limited arable land, or challenging growing conditions make hydroponic systems particularly valuable. Small island nations, desert regions, and urban areas in developing countries represent priority markets where Brio's technologies can address critical food security challenges. International expansion also creates opportunities for technology transfer partnerships with foreign governments and development organizations. Brio's experience in adapting global technologies to local conditions positions the company as a valuable partner for agricultural development projects in emerging markets. Digital Platform and Franchise Model The expansion strategy includes development of digital platforms that enable remote monitoring, technical support, and market linkages for distributed hydroponic operations. These platforms can support franchise-style expansion where local entrepreneurs operate hydroponic systems under Brio's technical guidance and quality standards. Digital platforms enable centralized monitoring of multiple sites, standardized operating procedures, and quality assurance systems that maintain brand consistency across geographic locations. Remote monitoring capabilities reduce the need for physical presence while ensuring optimal system performance. The franchise model creates opportunities for local entrepreneurship while maintaining technical standards and market access. Local operators benefit from Brio's proven systems, training programs, and market linkages while adapting operations to local conditions and preferences. The 2035 Vision: India's Model for Climate-Smart Agriculture If we project a decade ahead, what does success for Brio Hydroponics look like? Is it thousands of acres of soil-less farming, a farmer-first export powerhouse, or becoming India’s model for climate-smart agriculture? By 2035, Brio Hydroponics envisions a transformational impact on India's agricultural landscape that extends far beyond the current scale of operations. The company's vision encompasses three interconnected dimensions: massive scaling of soil-less farming infrastructure, establishment of India as a farmer-first export powerhouse, and creation of a replicable model for climate-smart agriculture that can be deployed globally. The scaling vision projects thousands of acres under hydroponic cultivation across multiple states, supported by a network of technology centers, training facilities, and processing hubs. This infrastructure would serve both commercial operations and smallholder farmers, creating an integrated ecosystem that supports diverse scales and types of agricultural operations. Market projections support this ambitious vision, with India's hydroponics market expected to reach $ 2,227 million by 2035, representing a 21.43 per cent compound annual growth rate. This explosive growth trajectory indicates that hydroponics will transition from niche technology to mainstream agricultural practice, driven by water scarcity, climate change, and increasing demand for premium produce. Farmer-First Export Powerhouse Model The 2035 vision positions India as a global leader in hydroponic produce exports, with farmer prosperity at the center of the value chain. This farmer-first approach ensures that technology advancement translates into improved livelihoods for agricultural communities rather than simply benefiting large corporate operations. The export powerhouse model leverages India's competitive advantages in agricultural innovation, skilled technical workforce, and growing expertise in controlled environment agriculture. By 2035, Brio envisions Indian hydroponic produces competing successfully in premium international markets, commanding prices that reflect superior quality, traceability, and sustainable production methods. This export focus requires significant investment in post-harvest infrastructure, cold chain logistics, and quality certification systems. The integration of blockchain technology for supply chain transparency and adherence to international organic and sustainability standards will enable Indian hydroponic produce to access the highest-value global markets. Climate-Smart Agriculture Leadership The broader vision positions India as a global model for climate-smart agriculture that other developing countries can emulate. This leadership role involves several components: technology innovation, policy framework development, institutional capacity building, and international cooperation. India's experience in adapting global hydroponic technologies to local conditions, integrating smallholder farmers into high-tech systems, and scaling sustainable agriculture practices provides valuable lessons for other developing countries facing similar challenges. The knowledge and systems developed through projects like Unnati can be transferred to other regions through technical cooperation programs and development partnerships. The climate-smart agriculture model emphasizes three key outcomes: Productivity Enhancement: Hydroponic systems consistently deliver higher yields per unit area while using fewer resources, contributing to food security without expanding agricultural land use. Climate Resilience: Controlled environment agriculture systems eliminate weather-related risks and enable consistent production despite increasing climate variability. Environmental Sustainability: Reduced water usage, elimination of soil degradation, and minimized chemical inputs create agricultural systems that support rather than degrade environmental health. Technology Integration and Digital Agriculture The 2035 vision includes comprehensive integration of hydroponic systems with India's digital agriculture infrastructure, creating seamless connectivity between controlled environment agriculture and broader agricultural support systems. This integration enables farmers to access weather advisories, market information, technical support, and financial services through unified digital platforms. Artificial intelligence and machine learning systems will optimize hydroponic operations by analyzing vast datasets on plant growth, environmental conditions, and market demand to make real-time adjustments that maximize productivity and profitability. These systems will enable predictive management that anticipates and prevents problems before they impact crop production. The digital integration also enables new forms of agricultural finance and insurance that are specifically designed for controlled environment agriculture. Satellite monitoring, IoT sensors, and blockchain verification can provide the data transparency needed for innovative financial products that reduce risks for both farmers and lenders. Institutional and Policy Framework Achieving the 2035 vision requires supportive institutional and policy frameworks that encourage innovation, facilitate technology adoption, and ensure that benefits reach smallholder farmers. Brio's partnerships with agricultural universities, government agencies, and international organizations create a foundation for policy advocacy and institutional development. The vision includes establishment of specialized training institutions, research centers, and extension services focused on controlled environment agriculture. These institutions would provide the technical expertise, research capabilities, and farmer support services needed to sustain rapid expansion of hydroponic systems across India. Policy frameworks need to address regulatory standards for hydroponic produce, quality certification systems, and trade policies that facilitate exports. The integration of hydroponics into existing agricultural support programs, including subsidies, insurance, and market linkages, will ensure that the technology remains accessible to farmers of all scales. A New Era of Agricultural Innovation Brio Hydroponics' Unnati project represents more than an agricultural venture; it embodies a comprehensive transformation of how India approaches food production, climate resilience, and rural prosperity. Through the strategic deployment of controlled environment agriculture at unprecedented scale, Brio is creating a replicable model that addresses India's most pressing agricultural challenges while establishing pathways for global leadership in sustainable farming technologies. The answers to these critical questions reveal that hydroponics in India is transitioning from experimental technology to mainstream agricultural practice, driven by necessity, opportunity, and visionary leadership. The success of Unnati and similar projects will determine whether India can achieve its vision of climate-smart, sustainable agriculture that serves both farmers and consumers while protecting environmental resources for future generations. The convergence of technological innovation, strategic partnerships, supportive policies, and market demand creates unprecedented opportunities for transforming Indian agriculture. Brio Hydroponics' leadership in this transformation positions the company—and India—at the forefront of a global agricultural revolution that promises to redefine how the world produces food in an era of climate change and resource scarcity. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3304/banned-in-europe-essential-in-india-global-regulatory-dilemma-of-mancozeb.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3304/banned-in-europe-essential-in-india-global-regulatory-dilemma-of-mancozeb.html Tue, 07 Oct 2025 18:09:00 +0530 Mancozeb, that ubiquitous arbiter of phytopathological destiny, continues to bestride the globe as an indispensable fungicidal panacea, even as the European Union has cast it into regulatory obsolescence on grounds of speculative toxicology. Its multisite mode of action, coupled with an enviable paucity of resistance development, renders it indispensable for high-value horticultural and agronomic commodities—from India’s grapes and potatoes to Latin America’s bananas and Brazil’s soybeans. Yet the global regulatory tableau is a patchwork of prudence and profligacy: while North America permits its judicious deployment, India confronts an incomplete evidentiary edifice and the concomitant peril to trade and farmer livelihoods. Empirical case studies elucidate the stark economic and agronomic ramifications of an abrupt excision—diminished yields, escalated input costs, and disrupted export flows—which may well outweigh the conjectural health risks if employed under Good Agricultural Practices. Mancozeb thus embodies the quintessential conundrum of contemporary agriculture: the delicate dialectic between human health, agronomic imperatives, and global food security in an era of climate volatility and international interdependence. Mancozeb, an ethylene-bis-dithiocarbamate (EBDC), stands as one of the globe’s most extensively employed fungicides, esteemed for its broad-spectrum efficacy and remarkable cost-efficiency. Its multisite mode of action allows it to inhibit diverse fungal metabolic pathways, rendering the emergence of resistance exceedingly improbable. In an era in which crop diseases are evolving at a pace that outstrips chemical interventions, Mancozeb has remained an unwavering ally of farmers across continents. Yet, paradoxically, while it is proscribed in the European Union, it remains indispensable in India, Latin America, and other burgeoning agricultural economies. This regulatory disjunction epitomises a global dilemma: the delicate reconciliation of human health imperatives with the exigencies of agricultural productivity and food security. Mancozeb: A Fungicide with Global Reach Across the globe, Mancozeb finds application on a vast array of crops, from the potato fields and vineyards of India and the United Kingdom, to the banana plantations of Latin America, and the sprawling soybean belts of Brazil. Its paramount advantage lies in its multisite mode of action, whereby it simultaneously impedes multiple fungal metabolic pathways. Unlike systemic fungicides, which assail a solitary enzyme or receptor and thus succumb readily to pathogen adaptation, Mancozeb would necessitate the improbable mutation of myriad genes for resistance to arise. It is this very characteristic that has enshrined it as a cornerstone of integrated disease management, frequently deployed in concert with systemic fungicides to combat recalcitrant pathogens such as Plasmopara viticola, the agent responsible for downy mildew in grapes. According to statistics furnished by the Indian government, India alone produces an estimated 500,000 million tonnes of Mancozeb annually, available in a spectrum of formulations including 35% SC, 75% WG, and 75% WP. Beyond Indian shores, Mancozeb retains pre-eminence in the control of potato diseases in the U.K., bananas across Central and South America, and soybeans in Brazil. Its exceptional versatility, coupled with an affordability—generally ranging between $5 and $10 per kilogram—renders it indispensable not only to smallholder farmers but also to large-scale agribusiness enterprises, bridging the imperatives of economic prudence and agricultural efficacy. To understand Mancozeb’s global position, it is important to compare it with alternative fungicides: Fungicide TypeMode of ActionResistance RiskEnvironmental ImpactCost (USD/kg)MancozebMultisite inhibitorLowLow5–10BiofungicidesBiological controlVery LowVery Low15–25Copper FungicidesContact protectantModerateModerate10–20SDHI FungicidesSpecific enzyme inhibitorHighLow20–30 Source: ACS Agricultural Science & Technology, 2022; FAO Pesticide Data Regulatory Landscape: A Global Patchwork Mancozeb’s regulatory status varies sharply across regions, reflecting differences in risk assessment, agricultural priorities, and market sensitivity. European Union On the 14th of December, 2020, the European Commission promulgated Regulation (EU) 2020/2087, thereby proscribing the use of mancozeb, predicated upon its classification as a potential endocrine disruptor. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), whilst acknowledging the lacunae inherent in compound-specific analytical methodologies, nonetheless proceeded with the prohibition, invoking the precautionary principle as the lodestar of its regulatory reasoning. Although the European Union has rescinded approval, mancozeb continues to enjoy provisional sanction within the United Kingdom until the 31st of January, 2024. This interdiction has reverberated across the corridors of global commerce, for EU residue thresholds now exert a determinative influence upon exporters in India, Latin America, and sundry other trading partners, thereby entwining scientific prudence with the imperatives of international agrarian trade. United States In contradistinction, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has undertaken successive and scrupulous evaluations of mancozeb, ultimately adjudging that the acute, chronic, and carcinogenic dietary risks remain comfortably beneath the threshold of concern, provided the compound is employed in strict accordance with label directives. The EPA’s re-registration exercise of 2005 reaffirmed mancozeb’s safety profile, highlighting its negligible acute toxicity and the acceptably circumscribed risk associated with ETU metabolites, which frequently feature in toxicological disputations. A consonant appraisal has been rendered by Canadian authorities, who have sanctioned its continued utilisation within a framework of regulated oversight. India India, as the preeminent global purveyor of Mancozeb, finds itself ensnared in a regulatory quagmire of considerable complexity. In 2020, the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare embarked upon a comprehensive review of Mancozeb, alongside twenty-six other agrochemicals, contemplating a prospective proscription. Critics, however, have decried the preliminary assessments as lamentably partial, predicated solely upon thyroid profiles from a singular locus, devoid of the rigorous crop residue analyses requisite for an informed decision. A constellation of Indian stakeholders—including the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA), farmers’ collectives, and agrochemical enterprises—have championed a measured, evidence-driven approach. They underscore that an abrupt excision of Mancozeb could imperil the export viability of table grapes, potatoes, and other high-value horticultural commodities, with attendant repercussions on both agrarian livelihoods and the nation’s foreign exchange inflows. Economic and Trade Implications Globally, Mancozeb undergirds the livelihoods of millions of agrarians and contributes billions of dollars to agricultural export revenues. In India, for instance, table grapes and potatoes—both high-value export commodities—rely extensively upon Mancozeb for efficacious disease management. Downy mildew in grapes and early and late blight in potatoes can wreak havoc on yields if left unchecked, and projections indicate that the excision of Mancozeb could truncate output by 20 to 30 per cent per hectare. Such a diminution would reverberate through India’s export markets, particularly the European Union, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia, potentially eroding the nation’s competitive advantage and diminishing foreign exchange inflows derived from horticultural exports. The scenario in Latin America is no less grave, especially in the context of banana cultivation. Black sigatoka, engendered by Mycosphaerella fijiensis, exhibits formidable resistance to many fungicidal interventions, rendering EBDCs such as Mancozeb the most efficacious recourse. Withdrawal of this fungicide would likely escalate production costs by up to 30 per cent, as cultivators would be compelled to substitute either costlier or less effective alternatives, while yields might concomitantly decline due to suboptimal disease control. Such perturbations could undermine the global competitiveness of Latin American bananas, imperiling both large-scale exporters and the smallholder farmers whose very sustenance is entwined with this crop. In the United Kingdom, Mancozeb plays an indispensable role in potato cultivation, with over 90 per cent of the crop area routinely treated to mitigate the twin threats of late and early blight. Bereft of Mancozeb, farmers would be compelled to deploy alternative fungicides, such as SDHIs or strobilurins, which are not only more costly but also prone to engendering resistance. This substitution could conceivably double per-hectare fungicide expenditures, compressing margins within an already fiercely competitive agricultural sector. Brazilian soybean cultivation further exemplifies the global ramifications. Soybeans, a strategic commodity in both domestic and international markets, are vulnerable to diseases such as Asian soybean rust, which can inflict severe yield losses. Mancozeb has demonstrably curtailed disease incidence by 60 to 70 per cent in field trials, preserving both output volume and quality. Its withdrawal would imperil yield stability, destabilise global supply chains, and amplify dependence upon costlier, single-target fungicides, thereby exacerbating resistance pressures over time. Collectively, these vignettes underscore Mancozeb’s remarkable economic efficacy. It furnishes broad-spectrum disease control at modest cost, with minimal risk of resistance evolution, rendering it indispensable for both high-value and staple crops alike. The prospective consequences of its removal extend beyond mere yield diminution: they encompass escalated input costs, heightened financial vulnerability for farmers, and potential disruption of international trade flows. When juxtaposed with the posited health risks—which, under judicious adherence to Good Agricultural Practices (GAP), remain largely negligible—the economic and food security imperatives of sustaining Mancozeb arguably outweigh the speculative hazards, thereby accentuating the necessity for a nuanced, evidence-based regulatory paradigm. Conclusion Mancozeb occupies a singular and paradoxical nexus at the confluence of agriculture, public health, and international commerce—prohibited in Europe, yet indispensable across India, Latin America, and other emerging agrarian economies. Its multisite mode of action, combined with economic prudence and broad-spectrum disease control, renders it an essential instrument for safeguarding high-value crops such as grapes, bananas, potatoes, and soybeans. Global case studies consistently illuminate a salient truth: precipitous prohibitions risk imperilling both food security and economic resilience. While toxicological apprehensions warrant meticulous management and sustained scholarly inquiry, an indiscriminate withdrawal devoid of nuanced risk assessment could paradoxically engender greater detriment—manifesting as yield contractions, escalated market prices, and the erosion of farmer livelihoods. Confronted with the twin imperatives of climate change and the relentless emergence of phytopathogens, alongside the exacting demands of global trade standards, Mancozeb exemplifies the delicate equilibrium between scientific circumspection and pragmatic stewardship. Its narrative transcends the mere pharmacology of a fungicide; it epitomises the broader dialectic of global food security, responsible agrochemical governance, and harmonised regulatory praxis in an intricately interdependent world. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3303/from-soil-to-carbon-credits-why-biochar-could-be-global-souths-climate-advantage.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3303/from-soil-to-carbon-credits-why-biochar-could-be-global-souths-climate-advantage.html Tue, 07 Oct 2025 12:34:57 +0530 Exclusive to Agrospectrum, Dr. Nripanka Das, Subject Matter Expert in Carbon Projects (UAE), explains why biochar is emerging as the “engineered permanence” solution in a carbon market searching for credibility, durability, and fair valuation. He highlights biochar’s dual advantage of long-term carbon sequestration and soil regeneration, a combination that delivers stacked financial and agronomic benefits. Scaling beyond pilots, he stresses, will require modular pyrolysis technology, aggregated demand, and blended finance models that de-risk large capital investments. Dr. Das argues that early movers can benefit from current price volatility by building high-quality, premium projects with strong verification systems. He also emphasizes the leadership role of India and Africa, where agricultural residues, traditional knowledge, and policy momentum could turn these regions into global biochar hubs. Looking ahead to 2035, he envisions biochar credits becoming exchange-traded, fully integrated into national carbon inventories, and a cornerstone of regenerative agriculture worldwide. Setting the Context – Carbon Market Inflection Point Carbon markets are undergoing a reset, with debates on credibility, permanence, and fair valuation. Where does biochar sit within this rapidly shifting landscape? Biochar occupies a unique position in the carbon market reset precisely because it addresses the three core concerns driving this transformation: credibility, permanence and fair valuation. Unlike nature- based solutions that face reversibility risks or technological solutions with high energy penalties, biochar offers what I call "engineered permanence" - carbon sequestration that can be measured, verified and guaranteed for centuries. From a credibility standpoint, biochar's carbon accounting is remarkably straightforward compared to forestry projects. We can directly measure the carbon content of the biochar (typically 70-85 per cent by mass), apply well-established permanence factors (0.8-0.95 depending on feedstock and pyrolysis conditions), and calculate net sequestration with minimal uncertainty. The IPCC guidelines provide clear methodologies, and third-party verification is becoming standardized through protocols like Verra's VM0044 and Gold Standard's biochar methodology. The permanence question is where biochar truly differentiates itself. While forest carbon can be released through fires, disease, or land-use change, biochar's aromatic carbon structure resists decomposition for 100-1000+ years in soil. Recent research using radiocarbon dating of ancient biochar deposits confirms this stability. We're not dealing with biological permanence that depends on ecosystem management - we're dealing with chemical permanence based on molecular structure. Unlike forestry or renewable projects, biochar offers both carbon sequestration and soil regeneration. Do you see this duality as its biggest differentiator in carbon finance? Absolutely. This duality creates what economists call "stacked benefits" that fundamentally change the value proposition. Traditional carbon projects generate single revenue streams, but biochar creates multiple value cascades: carbon credits, soil productivity improvements, reduced fertilizer requirements, enhanced water retention and often waste management solutions. From a financial modeling perspective, this changes the entire risk-return profile. A forestry project might generate $10-50 per hectare annually from carbon credits alone. A well-designed biochar project can generate $50-150 per hectare from carbon credits, plus 10-30 per cent yield improvements worth $200-800 per hectare annually, plus reduced input costs of $50-200 per hectare. The total economic value can exceed $1000 per hectare annually in high-value crop systems. This stacking effect also provides revenue diversification that reduces project risk. If carbon prices decline, the agricultural benefits maintain project viability. If crop prices fall, carbon revenues provide a floor. This risk mitigation is crucial for attracting institutional capital at scale. Economics of Biochar – Scaling Beyond Pilots Many biochar projects remain stuck at the pilot or grant stage. What will it take—policy, price signals, or blended finance—to move biochar into commercial scale deployment? The scaling challenge is fundamentally about crossing what I call the "commercial valley of death" - the gap between demonstration-scale projects (1-10 tonnes/year) and commercial-scale operations (1000+ tonnes/year). This requires addressing three critical barriers simultaneously. First, we need production cost reduction through economies of scale. Current small-scale pyrolysis systems produce biochar at $800-1500 per tonne. Commercial-scale continuous pyrolysis systems can achieve $300-600 per tonne, but require $2-10 million capital investments. The key is developing modular, standardized systems that can achieve economies of scale while maintaining deployment flexibility. Second, we need aggregated demand that justifies large-scale production. This means moving beyond individual farm applications to landscape-scale programs. Successful models are emerging in regions like Queensland, Australia, where government programs aggregate demand across thousands of farmers, creating predictable off-take agreements that justify commercial-scale production investments. Third, we need blended finance structures that address the unique risk profile of biochar projects. These projects have high upfront capital requirements, long payback periods, and revenue streams that depend on both carbon markets and agricultural outcomes. Development finance institutions are beginning to structure facilities that combine concessional debt for capital equipment, carbon credit advance purchase agreements, and agricultural insurance products. Policy plays a crucial enabling role, but it's not sufficient alone. We need carbon pricing that reflects biochar's true permanence value, agricultural policies that recognize soil carbon benefits, and waste management policies that create feedstock supply certainty. Current credit prices for biochar vary widely, from $50 to $150 per tonne of CO₂ equivalent. Is this volatility a barrier or an opportunity for early movers? This volatility reflects market immaturity rather than fundamental value uncertainty and it's definitely an opportunity for sophisticated early movers who understand the underlying value drivers. The price variation stems from several factors: different methodologies (some include only sequestration, others include avoided emissions), varying permanence assumptions, different co- benefit valuations, and buyer preferences for specific project types or geographies. Projects using agricultural residues in developing countries might trade at $50-80, while projects using purpose-grown biomass with comprehensive monitoring might command $120-150. Early movers can capitalize on this volatility through several strategies. First, they can develop projects that qualify for premium pricing by investing in robust monitoring, verification, and co-benefit quantification. Second, they can use forward contracting to lock in current high prices for future delivery. Third, they can build portfolios across different project types and geographies to capture price arbitrage opportunities. The volatility will decrease as markets mature and standardization improves, but early movers who establish quality projects now will benefit from both current premium pricing and future volume scaling. Policy, Standards, and Market Integrity The Integrity Council for Voluntary Carbon Markets (ICVCM) is pushing for stricter Core Carbon Principles. How ready is biochar to meet these new benchmarks? Biochar is exceptionally well-positioned to meet ICVCM's Core Carbon Principles, arguably better than most nature-based solutions. Let me address each principle specifically: Real and Additional: Biochar projects demonstrate clear additionality because biochar production requires intentional investment in pyrolysis infrastructure. The counterfactual scenario (burning or decomposing biomass) releases carbon, making the additionality calculation straightforward. Quantified and Verified: Biochar's carbon content can be directly measured using established analytical methods (elemental analysis, thermogravimetric analysis). Unlike forestry projects that rely on growth models and sampling, biochar quantification is based on direct measurement of the final product. Permanent: This is biochar's strongest suit. The aromatic carbon structure provides chemical permanence that doesn't depend on ongoing management or ecosystem stability. Recent studies using advanced analytical techniques confirm minimal decomposition rates over decades. Unique: Biochar credits represent specific, measurable quantities of carbon sequestered in identifiable locations, with clear chain of custody from feedstock to final application. The main challenge is ensuring robust monitoring and verification systems, particularly for smallholder applications. However, emerging technologies like blockchain-based tracking, satellite monitoring, and mobile soil testing are making comprehensive verification increasingly feasible and cost-effective. The EU and U.S. are advancing climate-smart agriculture incentives. Do you see India or Africa building similar policy ecosystems to accelerate biochar adoption? India and Africa are developing policy frameworks, but with different approaches that reflect their unique agricultural and economic contexts. India's approach is emerging through multiple channels. The National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture includes soil health improvement programs that could incorporate biochar. The Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana focuses on water use efficiency, where biochar's water retention properties provide clear benefits. Most importantly, India's updated Nationally Determined Contribution includes soil carbon sequestration targets that biochar can help achieve. The key difference is that India is likely to emphasize domestic production using agricultural residues, particularly rice husks and sugarcane bagasse. This addresses both the stubble burning problem in Punjab and Haryana and creates rural employment opportunities. The policy framework will likely combine pollution control mandates with carbon market incentives. Africa's approach varies by region, but several countries are developing innovative frameworks. Kenya's Climate Smart Agriculture Strategy explicitly mentions biochar. Ghana is piloting biochar programs through its Cocoa Board, using cocoa pod husks. South Africa is integrating biochar into its carbon tax framework. The African approach tends to emphasize smallholder aggregation and community-based production models. This reflects the reality of fragmented land holdings but also creates opportunities for more inclusive value distribution. The Farmer and the Field – Ground Realities In regions like Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, where agriculture is fragmented, how can biochar projects aggregate farmers at scale without losing credibility in monitoring and reporting? Successful aggregation in fragmented agricultural systems requires what I call "nested verification" - combining high-tech monitoring at the landscape scale with simplified protocols at the farm scale. The key is developing hub-and-spoke models where centralized pyrolysis facilities serve multiple farming communities within a 50-100 km radius. This allows for standardized biochar production and quality control while maintaining local feedstock sourcing and application. For monitoring and verification, we're implementing three-tier systems: Tier 1 - Production Monitoring: Centralized facilities use continuous monitoring systems to track feedstock inputs, pyrolysis conditions, and biochar outputs. This provides precise data on carbon content and production volumes. Tier 2 - Distribution Tracking: Blockchain-based systems track biochar from production to farm-level application. Farmers receive QR-coded bags that link to specific production batches and carbon content data. Tier 3 - Application Verification: Satellite monitoring combined with statistical sampling verifies application patterns and soil carbon changes. Mobile soil testing units conduct periodic verification across representative farm plots. This approach maintains credibility while keeping farmer participation costs low. Farmers don't need sophisticated monitoring equipment - they simply document application using mobile apps that integrate with the broader tracking system. Successful examples include the Kenya Agricultural Carbon Project, which aggregates over 60,000 smallholder farmers, and pilot programs in Maharashtra, India, that combine biochar with existing farmer producer organization structures. Global South Leadership & Geopolitics Biochar has deep roots in traditional practices like terra preta in the Amazon and tribal methods in India. Can the Global South position biochar not just as a climate tool, but as a cultural and ecological export to global markets? Absolutely. The Global South has a unique opportunity to position biochar as "indigenous climate technology" - combining traditional knowledge with modern carbon markets to create both economic and cultural value. Terra preta soils in the Amazon demonstrate biochar's effectiveness over centuries, providing scientific validation for traditional practices. Similarly, traditional charcoal-making and soil amendment practices across Africa and Asia offer proven implementation models that can be scaled and modernized. This creates several strategic advantages. First, it positions Global South countries as technology leaders rather than technology recipients. Second, it creates intellectual property opportunities around traditional knowledge systems. Third, it enables premium pricing for "heritage biochar" that combines carbon sequestration with cultural preservation. The key is developing certification systems that recognize and reward traditional knowledge while ensuring modern monitoring and verification standards. Programs like the Indigenous Carbon Credits initiative in Australia provide models for combining traditional practices with contemporary carbon markets. From a market positioning perspective, this could create differentiated product categories: "Amazonian terra preta biochar," "African traditional biochar," or "Indian tribal biochar" that command premium prices based on cultural heritage and proven effectiveness. With China, the EU, and the U.S. racing to secure carbon removal pathways, where do you see India and Africa positioning themselves in the global biochar economy? India and Africa have the potential to become the "Saudi Arabia of biochar" due to abundant biomass resources, low production costs, and growing technical capabilities. However, success requires strategic positioning rather than simply competing on cost. India's strategy should focus on becoming the global hub for biochar technology and services. With strong engineering capabilities, abundant agricultural residues, and growing carbon market expertise, India can develop and export both biochar products and production technologies. The key is moving up the value chain from raw biochar production to engineered biochar products, monitoring systems, and project development services. Africa's opportunity lies in premium biochar production combined with landscape-scale carbon sequestration programs. African biochar can command premium prices due to high-quality feedstocks, traditional production knowledge, and significant co-benefits for soil restoration and food security. The focus should be on developing regional biochar exchanges and certification systems that capture maximum value. Both regions should avoid the "resource curse" trap of simply exporting raw materials. Instead, they should develop integrated value chains that include feedstock production, biochar manufacturing, application services, and carbon credit development. This creates local employment while capturing maximum value from the global carbon economy. The geopolitical dimension is crucial. As developed countries face increasing pressure to achieve net- zero targets, they'll need massive carbon removal capacity. India and Africa can position themselves as essential partners in global climate goals while building domestic green economies. Looking Ahead – The Next Decade If we fast forward to 2035, what would a successful biochar-carbon market ecosystem look like? Widespread farmer adoption? Exchange-traded biochar credits? Integration into national carbon inventories? By 2035, I envision a mature biochar ecosystem with several key characteristics: Standardized Production and Trading: Biochar will be traded as a standardized commodity with established quality grades, similar to how agricultural commodities are traded today. Exchange-traded biochar credits will provide price discovery and risk management tools, with futures markets enabling long-term planning. Integrated Agricultural Systems: Biochar application will be standard practice in regenerative agriculture systems, integrated with precision agriculture technologies. Farmers will receive real-time recommendations on biochar application rates based on soil sensors, satellite data, and AI-driven optimization systems. National Carbon Accounting: Biochar will be fully integrated into national greenhouse gas inventories and carbon accounting systems. Countries will include biochar sequestration in their NDC reporting, with standardized monitoring and verification protocols. Technology Integration: Advanced pyrolysis systems will be integrated with renewable energy infrastructure, waste management systems, and agricultural processing facilities. Mobile pyrolysis units will serve remote agricultural areas, while large-scale facilities will anchor regional biochar production hubs. Financial Market Maturation: Biochar projects will access mainstream capital markets through green bonds, carbon credit securitization, and agricultural investment funds. Insurance products will cover production risks, carbon permanence, and agricultural performance. The successful ecosystem will be characterized by seamless integration across the value chain - from feedstock production through biochar manufacturing, application, monitoring, and carbon credit trading. This integration will create a self-reinforcing cycle where carbon revenues support agricultural productivity improvements, which in turn generate more feedstock for biochar production. Most importantly, biochar will have evolved from a niche climate solution to a fundamental component of sustainable agriculture and carbon management systems worldwide. These responses reflect deep technical understanding while addressing the practical realities of scaling biochar in global carbon markets. ---- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3297/oseleta-reborn-dr-katarina-andersson-on-soul-story-and-future-of-italian-wine.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3297/oseleta-reborn-dr-katarina-andersson-on-soul-story-and-future-of-italian-wine.html Mon, 06 Oct 2025 12:20:21 +0530 In this exclusive conversation with Agrospectrum and NUFFOODS Spectrum, Dr. Katarina Andersson, Founder, WinesOfItaly, relives the transformative moment she first stood in an Oseleta vineyard near Lake Garda — a sunlit afternoon that changed how she saw Valpolicella forever. What began as curiosity about a forgotten grape turned into a revelation about Italy’s evolving wine identity — one rooted in authenticity, resilience, and a return to native traditions. With passion and precision, Dr. Andersson unpacks the renaissance of Oseleta, its role in redefining Valpolicella beyond Amarone, and the bold experiments of pioneers like Eleva Winery. From the new language of terroir storytelling to the reimagining of luxury as meaning and connection rather than price and prestige, she paints a vision of wine’s metamodern future — where rarity, culture, and conscience intertwine. By 2030, Dr. Andersson believes grapes like Oseleta could become the heartbeat of a new generation of wine lovers — making wine not just sophisticated again, but soulful and joyfully human. The Moment of Discovery Take us back to that autumn day near Lake Garda. What was it about standing in an Oseleta vineyard that made you feel “hooked on a feeling”? Was this the moment that reframed your view of Valpolicella beyond Amarone? It was on a beautiful and sunny autumn or winter afternoon back in 2017, that I visited the Bardolino Chiaretto area by Lake Garda as part of a press tour. We had a short walk through the small Oseleta vinyard plot at Villa Cordevigo before we entered the resort to taste through the Bardolino consortium's Chiaretto wines (Consorzio Vini Bardolino DOC). During that period, in 2017, when I visited the Oseleta vineyard, I had been hosting my weekly WinesOfItaly livestreams about smaller to mid-sized, more artisanal wine producers, lesser-known wine regions, and native grapes for a couple of years. I was always curious - I still am - to discover new things about grapes or wine areas. Back in 2017, there were not many writers and bloggers who travelled through Italy in search of a native grape or a lesser-known wine or wine area. Today, everybody is an influencer in search of 'unknown' grapes or wines. Anyway, I recall standing in the Oseleta vineyard with my fellow wine writers, taking photos and videos of the bare vines with their winter leaves, and I was eager to learn more about and taste a monovarietal Oseleta wine. I knew that there is usually a small percentage of Oseleta in the Valpolicella wines, but I had up until then never tasted a wine made with mainly Oseleta. I was hooked in that moment, standing in the winter beauty, with a hint of winter mystique in the late afternoon, thinking of this lesser-known grape so closely linked to Veneto wine history. Luckily, a fellow Canadian wine writer who loves tannic wines asked Franco Cristoforetti, the owner of Villa Cordevigo and the president of the Bardolino Consortium at that time, if it would be possible to taste their monovarietal Oseleta wine. It felt a bit luxurious, as it is a wine that has been aged for a long time, and they produce only a limited number of bottles. When I tasted it, I was even more hooked, because, yes, it is tannic, but it is a grape that gives wine with a great personality. Oseleta is very recognisable in a wine, with its trademark tannins, red and darker fruity notes, herbal, spicy, and floral (violet) characteristics, freshness, and length. A Grape’s Second Act Oseleta was nearly forgotten because of its small berries and low yields. Why do you think it is now re-emerging as a variety of interest? What does its revival say about where the Italian wine industry is heading? We are in a period when there is a big interest in native grapes, artisanal wineries, organic, biodynamic, natural viticulture and winemaking, sustainability, ethical winemaking, etc. I think it was in the late 1990s or the early 2000s, that revival of native grapes and starting to make more monovarietal wines started to get traction. We can take the examples of Nero di Troia in Puglia and Ciliegiolo in Umbria and Tuscany, which before were mainly used as a blending grapes. They are grapes with a strong character, just as Oseleta, that were used to give freshness. elegance, strength, structure, color, aromas, tannins, etc to wines such as Rosso di Canosa for Nero di Troia; Montecucco Doc in Tuscany or Orvietano Rosso Doc in Umbria for Ciliegiolo; and Valpolicella wines and Veronese IGT for Oseleta. I believe the rise of native grapes and monovarietal wines was partly a result of many smaller producers starting to bottle their own wines, mainly in the 1990s, after having mostly sold their wine in bulk or sold the grapes. This contributed to niche producers and niche productions, with a new generation seeking to produce more quality rather than quantity of wine. However, the market started to change, with a growing demand for authentic wines and a shift away from the usual brands, which were often made with international grapes such as Chardonnay, Merlot, and Cabernet Sauvignon. This desire to explore local viticultural history, rare or forgotten grapes, and monovarietal wines would take off even more about 10-15 years ago. The focus on organic and sustainable viticulture has become increasingly important. The natural wine movement had its upswing in that period, too. It has been beautiful because it has drawn attention to the rich viticultural heritage that exists not only in Italy, but also in many countries, such as Eastern Europe, Moldova, Armenia, and Georgia, among others. The future appears uncertain for the moment, given the global turmoil. The big brands have more economic power, and to some extent, things are becoming more streamlined and commercial. On the other hand, there are numerous smaller to mid-sized wine producers who are doing great things, leveraging their local territories. Still, it is not easy for them to stand out in the noise of the wine production and marketing industry. I believe that there is significant potential in changing markets beyond the US, in trying to shift the narrative to reflect today's consumer habits and spending better. The wine world is still entrenched in an old-school mentality regarding how to view wine, how to drink it, and what wine to buy, among other things. It will also be essential to align with healthy habits and moderate drinking practices that are currently being preached. Wine is an alcoholic beverage, though much less so than spirits, RDTs, etc. Wine has a long and important history; in Europe and primarily in the Mediterranean, it has been considered an aliment and an essential part of the diet historically. Viticulture and winemaking are integral to the cultural heritage of many countries. Markets such as India, the Middle East, South America, and Africa will be the future. The geopolitical world view is changing before our eyes right now, and the wine world needs to shift, too. Beyond Amarone: Rewriting the Valpolicella Story Valpolicella is globally synonymous with Amarone. How can Oseleta — and blends like Cercastelle IGT Veronese — help tell a more diverse story of the region? I believe in native grapes and lesser-known wine areas and wines. I think shinig a light on grape varieties such as Oseleta, Raboso (in the Piave area in Veneto), Tai Rosso, Verdiso and Perera (used in Prosecco), etc. can contribute to narrate the history of Veneto and its traditions. It might be a way to help shift the narrative to better suit younger generations. The viticultural history could also be linked to farming, ethics, sustainability, etc. The future is surely to lift up these more rare or forgotten grapes that were always used in blends but never got much attention. Many of them will continue to be a part of blends, but it can be important to highlight their existence and their role in a blend. Their historical value. There is also a recent trend of returning to wines made with field blends, i.e., grape varieties that would have been naturally grown together in a vineyard plot in the past. The two or three varieties grown together would be harvested together and vinified together. Examples include Sangiovese grown alongside Canaiolo and Colorino. Amarone is evolving to some extent, adapting to better align with the changing tastes of consumers and the market, becoming slimmer, fresher, and more elegant. The Amarone wines of producers such as Eleva Winery, Antolini, Valentina Cubi, Massimago, Tedeschi, etc. have or have evolved into a more contemporary style. There is also an initiative in Veneto, I believe, by the Valpolicella Consortium, to raise the value of Valpolicella DOC and Valpolicella Superiore DOC wines as those that express the "true" Valpolicella and Veneto territory and tradition. The grapes are generally Corvina, Corvinone, and Rondinella, as in Amarone; however, the wines are made without appassimento, thus giving slimmer, fresher, and more fruit-forward wines with excellent drinkability. The Amarone, considered more prestigious, had somewhat overshadowed this category of wines. When, in reality, they are pleasant wines with a clear expression of the Valpolicella and Veneto terroir. Eleva Winery & the Cercastelle Experiment You’ve spoken highly of Davide Gaeta and Raffaela Veroli’s work at Eleva Winery. What makes their approach to blending Merlot with Oseleta so compelling? How do you see their experiment shaping the conversation about innovation in Valpolicella? I like Professor Davide Gaeta and oenologist Raffaela Veroli at Eleva because they are passionate and have invested their souls into the Eleva project. In the spirit of the founder of the winery, Franca Maculan, they have continued to be very invested in non-profit organizations such as AICCA (for people with congenital heart disease) and Orizzonti Sportizi (supports sport projects for the health of children in Camerun, for example, building basket and volleyball pitches). They are organic, they have built their winery building into an already existing rock on the property, making it like a winery where you almost enter into a cave-like structure. The barrel room is located in the far end of the winery, inside the rock itself thus having natural temperature regulation. They have leveraged what they have on the property and the legacy of Franca Maculan, which I believe is the strong point to make their narrative stand out. Regarding winemaking, they both believe in collaborating with younger consultant oenologists to teach and learn, enhancing the overall winemaking process. They conducted their own research and experiments to find a suitable grape to blend with the small plot of Merlot grapes they have. They discovered that Oseleta was an excellent option. The Cercastelle IGT Veronese wine has become a wine that distinguishes itself from the Valpolicella wines they produce; it has also become a key wine in telling the story of the local territory from a different perspective. As mentioned above, they can leverage their story as it fits what consumers and younger generations are looking for today. Like many wineries, they have to have the courage to take that step to be less safe and traditional, and more daring, or "audacious" and "weird," as American futurist, marketing thought leader, university educator, and author Mark W. Schaefer has said. This will be needed to cut through the noise and rise above mainstream content and AI-generated content. Wine-Making and Vinification Oseleta has unique characteristics — small berries, thick skins, and pronounced tannins. How do winemakers approach fermentation, maceration, and aging to highlight its qualities without overpowering the wine? How do blending decisions with Merlot or other Valpolicella grapes enhance or temper its profile? Are there innovative techniques being explored — such as amphora aging, natural yeasts, or extended lees contact — that you find particularly exciting? If blending the grape with, for example, Merlot or making it as a monovarietal wine, I think it largely depends on the winery's and winemaker's choices. It can also depend on how many Oseleta plants they have access to, if there is enough for a monovarietal wine. I cannot say much about this, though; one would need to look into each winery. Oseleta is still made as a monovarietal wine by very few producers. There are approximately 15 hectares in total planted with Oseleta in Veneto, so it is unlikely to be a significant producer of Oseleta wines. It can be a good niche wine to leverage as a part of the Veneto viticultural heritage. I prefer 100 per cent Oseleta wines to get the whole character and personality of Oseleta. I would like to see more ageing in big casks, or experimenting with maturation in ceramic vessels or amphora. I think barrique is too invasive for Oseleta; I think its varietal essence would come out better with big casks or amphora. I am sure we will see producers trying ageing in such vessels in the future. For now, Eleva is ageing in tonneaux. Villa Cordevigo is producing a 100 per cent Oseleta wine that undergoes appassimento and is aged in tonneaux for an extended period, while Zyme makes its Oz 100 per cent Oseleta, which is also aged in barrique for approximately 6 years. Native Grapes as Cultural Capital You often argue that native grapes are a way of communicating terroir and culture. Why do you believe Oseleta, in particular, carries cultural and emotional weight for the Valpolicella region? As mentioned above, I believe in native grapes and lesser-known wine areas and wines. I think native grapes are cultural capital and an essential part of the viticultural heritage. Together with other lesser-known and rare grapes, in this case in Veneto, I believe Oseleta and other grapes can help to deepen the narrative and go beyond Amarone and Prosecco in Veneto. Some research says that younger generation are looking for the history, the story behind the wines, the culture, ethics, etc. and then grapes as Oseleta can contribute to the storytelling. Other research says that consumers wants a more simple approach, they want to buy a wine without being lectured about the technical factors, the tasting notes, the ratings, they just want a simple story or anecdote about the wine that appeals to them. Then Oseleta and similar grapes can still be the future because they can add a different and fascinating story, it can also be a way to make consumers curious about trying something new. The future is surely to lift up these more rare or forgotten grapes that were always used in blends but never got much attention. Many of them will continue to be a part of blends, but it can be important to highlight their existence and their role in a blend. Their historical value. Terroir Storytelling How do Italian producers leverage micro-terroirs — from Veneto to Sicily — to differentiate wines in an increasingly competitive global market? How important is terroir authenticity in consumer perception today? There are those saying that consumers want simplicity and to buy wine, not to get the heavy info, tasting notes, tech sheets, soil info, etc that is often given by wineries, sommeliers, wine educators, etc. Others say that the younger genertations are interested in the people and its stories at the wineries, the terroir, the sustainability, ethics, etc. I think it might be a way of how you tell these stories. There is a need for a different focus in wine storytelling, different perspectives, formats, media, etc can be used to make the storytelling more interesting. I think that wineries themselves in Italy, so far, are not leveraging their history, tradition, farming perspectives, terroir, etc., enough in their wine communication. Setting up a strategy requires some effort. Not many wineries, not even larger ones, are using newsletters to share their story engagingly and as a means to nurture their subscribers, keeping them interested and excited about the winery. Most wineries send out a newsletter when they have an offer and want their subscribers to make a purchase. So, yes, terroir authenticity is essential today. I think it is vital to find new, fun ways to communicate about terroir, differences in terroir, and how it makes a specific winery, wine region, or area stand out. There is great potential for improvement for wineries and consortia. The New Luxury Code You wrote that “luxury in the metamodern era is more about unique and rare experiences than expensive wines.” How do niche grapes like Oseleta play into this shift? Are we seeing a democratization of luxury in wine? I think wine is in general democratic, at least in the Mediterrean part of Europe where wine has been a part of the cultural heritage since way back in history. It was, and is to a certain extent, a part of the everyday culture. Of course, there is also expensive wines like the hyped up brands sich as Sassicaia or Masseto, or Barolo and Brunello wines. There will always be people who look at wines more like an investment, and who are not really interested in the wine itself, but probably more for the hype/privilege it stands for, or the earnings you hope to make by investing in such wines. This is a small group of people though. I do not really see that as a definition of luxury anymore. There is a decline in global wine consumption revenue (about 3.3 per cent in 2024, compared to 2023, according to OIV; 9 per cent since 2019), as people are drinking less wine. Whether this is due to economic pressure resulting from higher living costs since the pandemic, geopolitical tensions with conflicts in Ukraine, Israel, and Gaza, or democratic instability in the US, for health reasons and temperance movements, or whether younger generations are drinking less wine or differently, remains to be seen. I am not sure. It is likely a combination of several factors. Rich people are getting richer, middle-class and lower-income people are getting poorer. There will always be people who want to spend a significant amount of money on expensive wine as a form of status symbol, similar to purchasing a Rolex or other luxury items. Still, I do not believe that it is considered true luxury anymore. In today's uncertain world, the pursuit of purpose and value becomes increasingly important, especially among Gen Z and Millennials. Luxury thus becomes something different; it becomes an experience that fulfils you, that is less common, takes more effort to find. Colleagues in the wine tourism sector have informed me that individuals with disposable income are seeking to experience and learn more about rare grape varieties, lesser-known wine regions, and unique experiences that combine wine with other local and authentic artisans, artisanal products, and specific cultural customs of an area. Travelling "slow" or in a "kinder" way, as a marketing friend of mine has coined it. Here she means "kind" in the sense of travelling with respect for the local territory, its inhabitants and daily life. This is the luxury of the future. "Mass" tourism and buying the usual wine brands, even the ones that are a bit more expensive, will in this sense not be luxury anymore, but more part of a mainstream idea of wine. I think the fact that many categories of people, not only Gen Z, are drinking less and are not interested in the "usual" status symbol wines, is a sign that things are changing and that professionals in the wine world need to change their perspective as well. A shift is underway. And, in this sense, I think lesser-known grapes, such as Oseleta, can play a role in the ongoing change. It can help to tell the story of a territory, its viticultural culture, history, and customs. It can also attract people who are willing to spend on unique or rare wine tourism experiences, helping smaller and more artisanal wineries to establish their profiles. Then, whether to define it as luxury or as "low" or "kind" wine tourism is for others to decide. Climate-Resilient Future With climate change impacting traditional regions, how do you see varieties like Oseleta — with their small, thick-skinned berries — contributing to the resilience of Italian vineyards? Oseleta is said to be resilient to climate change, thanks to its disease resistance, and also resistant to frost. So, it could for sure be a grape for the future. However, it is also true that only 15 hectares in total have been planted in Veneto so far. This grape variety produces tannic wines with character, which is true, but so far, it requires a lot of storytelling to sell. We will see if the future will highlight grapes such as Oseleta or focus more on hybrid grapes. I believe that in the Italian mindset, it is still easier to consider integrating resistant Vitis vinifera grapes, such as the crosses Manzoni Bianco, Müller-Thurgau, and Rebo, than Piwi grapes in DOC and DOCG denominations. Oseleta could perhaps also be an option for the future in this sense. However, in France, they have already begun to incorporate hybrid grapes into denominations such as Bordeaux and Champagne. Looking Ahead What is your dream scenario for Oseleta in 2030? How do you imagine its place in the global wine conversation — on restaurant lists, at tastings, or even in pop culture? In my ideal scenario, native grapes like Oseleta would take their place in the sun and be leveraged to change the narrative about wine. They could be used to tell the story of their original territory and in relation to their historical role in blending grapes. Such rare grapes would have their place on wine lists at restaurants and in wine bars, telling a different story about a territory and an appellation. Such grapes could be used in tastings to attract younger wine drinkers by perhaps shaping the wine tastings differently, not according to the usual tasting notes, but to put Oseleta in a larger regional context with other appellations or wines, other lesser-known grape varieties, or creating a tasting itinerary through local music, images, art, history, or other. For Gen Z, why not create a gaming experience around Oseleta and its history? Or perhaps a cartoon? Create hiking experiences - virtual and IRL - around the soil, climate, and overall terroir where Oseleta thrives. Since birds often like Oseleta, why not create an ornithology seminar about local birds in Veneto? It is just a thought, if there are people interested in that. There are many ways Italian wine could be presented by shifting the perspective and the way we tell stories, the formats we use, and how we approach wine tasting, among other approaches. The important thing is to make wine fun again, without losing depth, structure, and complexity in what we do. We need to go beyond wine scores and presentations where consumers and wine lovers are preached to by wine professionals on how or what they should drink. There is a world filled with fascinating grape varieties, wine regions, and wines to discover. There is no need to drink only wines from a few wine appellations and wineries. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3296/circular-carbon-at-scale-dr-jennifer-holmgren-on-policy-palm-oil-and-planes.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3296/circular-carbon-at-scale-dr-jennifer-holmgren-on-policy-palm-oil-and-planes.html Fri, 03 Oct 2025 12:17:14 +0530 In an exclusive interview with AgroSpectrum, Dr Jennifer Holmgren, CEO of LanzaTech, outlines the company’s strategic pivot from carbon-to-fuels toward reshaping supply chains with innovations like a sustainable palm oil substitute. She emphasises how CO₂-derived solutions can succeed where past alternatives failed by combining scalability with functionality and cost-efficiency. On the aviation front, she highlights LanzaTech’s unique positioning across multiple Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) pathways, backed by regulatory momentum in the U.S., EU, India, and China. She underscores the role of policy levers—from carbon pricing to long-term offtake agreements—in accelerating carbon-based SAF to commercial parity with fossil jet fuel. Looking ahead, Dr Jennifer Holmgren envisions a 2035 where airlines fly on CO₂-derived fuels and supermarket shelves carry carbon-based palm oil substitutes, marking a decisive shift toward a circular carbon economy. LanzaTech has long been synonymous with carbon-to-fuels. With this palm oil alternative, you’re now reshaping supply chains beyond energy. How did this pivot emerge, and what does it signal about LanzaTech’s evolution ? The pivot from a focus strictly on carbon-to-fuels to reshaping broader supply chains emerged as LanzaTech identified the critical need and opportunity for sustainable alternatives in global markets dependent on high-impact raw materials like palm oil. We have previously worked on chemicals such as ethylene that play a key role in the textiles space. This strategic shift signals LanzaTech's evolution from a company focused solely on carbon recycling for energy purposes to a broader provider of sustainable solutions across various industries. It reflects a response to the need for systemic changes in supply networks that extend beyond energy.Palm oil is arguably one of the world’s most entrenched commodities. Why do you believe this innovation could succeed where decades of alternatives have struggled ? The unique aspect of this innovation lies in its ability to meet the functional needs of industries currently dependent on palm oil, coupled with a sustainable production method. Decades of alternatives have struggled due to scalability, cost-efficiency, or failing to meet functional requirements. LanzaTech's technology leverages carbon waste as a feedstock, which is abundantly available, from waste CO2 to agricultural and forestry residues, thereby potentially undercutting the economic and environmental costs of palm oil production while maintaining the needed chemical properties.The SAF market is projected to hit $250+ billion by 2050. Where does LanzaTech’s platform fit into that growth compared to legacy SAF technologies ? LanzaTech is exceptionally positioned to capitalise on the burgeoning $250+ billion SAF market by 2050, thanks to our ability to engage with all key SAF production pathways, including Alcohol-to-Jet (AtJ), Hydroprocessed Esters and Fatty Acids (HEFA), and Power-to-Liquid (PtL). Unlike legacy SAF technologies that often depend on specific feedstocks or face scalability limits, our versatile platform utilizes industrial off-gases and waste carbon, converting them into ethanol—a flexible and scalable intermediary for SAF production. This approach aligns perfectly with evolving global regulations that prioritize waste and residue-based fuels. By integrating into diverse markets and adapting to varied regulatory and raw material landscapes, we're not just participating in the SAF market growth; we are actively driving it forward and setting new standards for sustainable aviation fuels. Airlines are desperate for scalable, affordable SAF. What are the economics of CO₂-derived HEFA oils versus conventional feedstocks like palm, or soy ? The economics of CO₂-derived HEFA oils could prove advantageous compared to conventional feedstocks due to lower raw material costs (captured carbon versus agricultural products) and potentially lower processing costs. These factors, combined with increasing regulatory support for low-carbon alternatives, could make CO₂-derived oils a scalable, affordable option for the aviation sector. With the U.S. and EU offering billions in SAF subsidies and blending mandates, what policy levers are still missing to bring carbon-based SAF to parity with fossil jet fuel ? Price Stabilisation Mechanisms: Establishing floor prices or minimum subsidy guarantees can stabilize the market and attract sustained investments. Enhanced Tax Credits and Incentives: Increasing the value or duration of tax credits for carbon-based SAF could accelerate adoption and infrastructure investments. Carbon Pricing: Implementing a robust carbon pricing system for fossil fuels can make SAF more economically viable by reflecting the true cost of carbon emissions. Streamlined Regulatory Approvals: Simplifying the approval process for new SAF facilities can reduce the time and cost of market entry. Public-Private Partnerships: Encouraging collaborative efforts between the public sector, private industry, and academia can share risks and facilitate technological exchange. Long-term Offtake Agreements: Government-led long-term agreements can provide SAF producers with market stability and financial predictability. Global Alignment on SAF Standards: Harmonizing international SAF standards can reduce compliance costs and facilitate global trade. These policy adjustments can create a more favorable environment for carbon-based SAF, helping bridge the gap to fossil jet fuels and supporting the aviation sector’s transition to sustainable practices. Europe is tightening deforestation-linked import bans; the U.S. is ramping up SAF credits. How do regulatory tailwinds in different geographies shape your commercialization roadmap ? The EU’s mandate of a 2 per cent blend of SAF escalating to 6 per cent by 2030 creates a sizable, stable demand for SAF, particularly beneficial for LanzaTech's recycled carbon fuels. Furthermore, the specific sub-mandate for e-SAF (PtL) channels LanzaTech into a niche but growing segment of the SAF market, especially as green hydrogen availability increases, allowing us to extend our offerings in the EU market. The UK’s increasing SAF mandates, expected to reach 10 per cent by 2030, combined with a specific cap on HEFA-feedstock SAF and a premium placed on advanced SAF solutions like ours, tailor a unique advantage for LanzaTech. India’s evolving SAF mandate, which anticipates a rise to 5 per cent by 2030, opens a new and burgeoning market for LanzaTech’s fuels derived from industrial off-gases and waste biomass. Our products qualify under the National Biofuels Policy, positioning us to be a key player in helping India achieve its SAF targets while supporting our expansion strategy in a highly populous and growing aviation market. By increasing the production of biofuels from waste carbon including agricultural residues, India can reduce its dependency on oil imports and promote energy sufficiency. This aligns with the Government of India's targets under the National Biofuel Policy, aiming to increase the blend of biofuels in the energy mix.  Each region's specific policy approach guides our focus and commercial exertions, enabling us to adapt and prioritize product lines and collaborations that align with regional SAF demand projections and policy incentives. This targeted approach enhances our ability to capitalize on emerging opportunities for growth and impact in the global SAF market. How close are we to a carbon circular economy ? With innovations like the palm oil substitute, we're moving closer to a carbon circular economy by displacing ecologically harmful commodities. Transforming wastes into valuable products aligns with rethinking carbon as a resource, and promoting utilization of recycled carbon. There are several ways India's unique agriculture sector can benefit from embracing these innovative technologies. India generates a substantial amount of agricultural residues, like straw from rice and wheat, which often get burnt, contributing to severe air pollution issues, especially in Northern India. LanzaTech's technology can convert these residues into valuable products such as ethanol, which can then be used to produce SAF or other biochemicals. This not only helps in reducing air pollution but also adds an economic value to what is otherwise considered waste. By setting up bio-refineries that leverage local agricultural residues, there can be significant job creation in rural areas and the use of ethanol and other byproducts from bio-refineries can incentivize sustainable agricultural practices.     Will fossil and deforestation-linked commodities still dominate by 2035 ? By 2035, I envision a world where airlines predominantly use CO₂-derived fuels and supermarket shelves are lined with sustainable, CO₂-based palm oil substitutes (and recycled carbon replaces virgin fossil carbon throughout!). This scenario is not just feasible; it's within our grasp with continuous technological advancements and favorable regulatory environments. We are pioneering a shift towards a circular carbon economy, turning carbon waste into a valuable resource. Our commitment to innovation and collaboration is paving the way for global transformations in both the aviation sector and consumer markets. Achieving this vision will depend on the scale of deployment, strong global partnerships, and maintaining an economic advantage over traditional commodities. Together, we are setting a legacy of sustainability, ensuring ecological responsibility and economic prosperity coexist, spearheading a sustainable era for generations to come.    ---- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3283/from-finland-to-gulf-how-finnforels-lohi-trout-is-redefining-sustainable-seafood.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3283/from-finland-to-gulf-how-finnforels-lohi-trout-is-redefining-sustainable-seafood.html Thu, 25 Sep 2025 09:15:04 +0530 In this exclusive Agro Spectrum and NUFFOODS Spectrum interview, Finnish aquaculture innovator Finnforel outlines its bold global push, starting with the UAE launch of its LoHi brand in LuLu Hypermarkets. With seafood demand in the Emirates growing 5–6 per cent annually, CEO Nora Hortling positions trout as a sustainable, premium alternative to salmon. Powered by a closed-loop recirculating aquaculture system (RAS), Finnforel avoids antibiotics, vaccines, and microplastics, while converting sidestreams into biogas and pet food. Its urban-focused model produces protein close to consumption hubs, ensuring unmatched freshness with minimal ecological footprint. Looking ahead, Nora aims to replicate its blueprint worldwide as protein demand surges toward 2050. Finnforel has successfully launched its LoHi brand in the UAE, starting with LuLu Hypermarkets. What makes the UAE such a strategic market for your global expansion? We see the UAE as an exceptionally attractive market. Fish consumption here is already at a good level, which means there is strong underlying demand. The overall fish and seafood market in the UAE is expanding at about 5–6 per cent annually, so the trajectory is positive. What also excites us is the consumer base itself. People in the UAE are deeply interested in healthy, protein-rich products, and trout is still relatively new to the market. That gives us the chance to differentiate ourselves and offer something distinct from what’s already on the shelves. LoHi products are marketed as clean, convenient, and sustainable. How does your closed-loop aquaculture technology ensure both ecological responsibility and premium quality for consumers? Our entire system is designed with circularity and responsibility at its core. Even though the waters in the lakes surrounding our factory are exceptionally clean, we go one step further and clean the incoming water once more before it enters the fish tanks. We then recirculate 99 per cent of that water. The small amount of water that leaves the facility is cleaned twice before it returns to nature. Nothing is wasted—sludge is collected and used for biogas production. Our fish are under 24/7 surveillance to ensure their well-being and the highest product quality. We are both ASC and IFS certified, which demonstrates our commitment to sustainable farming and rigorous processing standards. On the consumer side, we provide convenient, ready-packed products that generate no waste at home or in restaurant kitchens. Even the sidestreams are repurposed, for example as raw material for pet food. Owing to our closed environment, we don’t need to use preventive antibiotics or vaccines. Our water is free from microplastics, and the controlled ecosystem ensures that the fish remain healthy without external interventions. All of this guarantees a product that is both premium in quality and responsible in terms of its ecological footprint. Many aquaculture systems face criticism over environmental impact and fish welfare. How does Finnforel’s approach address biodiversity concerns and eliminate the need for antibiotics or parasite treatments? That’s precisely the advantage of a closed-loop system. Traditional aquaculture often struggles with parasites, which leads to chemical or antibiotic interventions that can harm both biodiversity and fish welfare. In our case, parasites simply aren’t an issue because the environment is fully controlled. Maintaining high water quality is our top priority—it directly impacts fish well-being. Healthy fish, in turn, produce better-quality protein. By removing external environmental pressures, we’ve essentially solved the core challenges that conventional aquaculture has been criticized for. The UAE market has its own lifestyle and culinary preferences. How did you adapt LoHi’s product formats and branding to meet local expectations? The reception in the UAE has been extremely encouraging. Consumers have responded very positively to LoHi trout, which we believe has real potential to establish itself as a strong alternative to salmon. Increasingly, shoppers here are looking for sustainably produced fish, and LoHi speaks directly to that demand. During our in-store sampling activities, the feedback was particularly rewarding. People consistently commented on the taste and freshness, with many describing it as unique and even more appealing than other options currently available. That reinforces our confidence that trout can secure a strong position in the market. We didn’t have to change the essence of our product, but the branding emphasis—clean, sustainable, convenient—has clearly resonated with local consumer values. With global protein demand expected to rise significantly by 2050, what role do you see Finnforel playing in shaping the future of sustainable seafood worldwide? We want to fundamentally change how fish comes to our plates. The reality is that our planet cannot withstand an increase in fishing from the seas. Wild stocks are already under immense pressure. At the same time, traditional aquaculture is approaching its limits because of the biodiversity and ecological harm it often creates. Our model provides a solution. By bringing our concept and blueprint close to major cities with large populations, we can produce high-quality, healthy protein near the point of consumption. That means ecological efficiency, minimal transport, and unmatched freshness—all without harming the environment. We see this as the future: sustainable aquaculture that scales responsibly to meet the protein demands of a growing world. Looking ahead, what are your plans for further expansion in the Middle East and beyond? Do you envision establishing local partnerships or production facilities outside Finland? Establishing production facilities globally is absolutely part of our long-term vision. We have already identified several suitable locations. That said, at this stage, our primary focus remains on strengthening our production base in Finland while expanding our sales and presence in export markets like the UAE. Local partnerships will likely play an important role as we move forward, but the overarching goal is clear: to bring Finnforel’s closed-loop aquaculture model closer to consumers worldwide. --- Shraddha Warde (shraddha.warde@mmactiv.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3282/turning-climate-risk-into-opportunity-dr-godefroy-grosjean-and-ena-derenoncourt-on-ethiopias-green-finance-revolution.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3282/turning-climate-risk-into-opportunity-dr-godefroy-grosjean-and-ena-derenoncourt-on-ethiopias-green-finance-revolution.html Wed, 24 Sep 2025 15:48:27 +0530 In this exclusive Agrospectrum interview, Dr. Godefroy Grosjean, Co-lead of CGIAR’s Hub for Sustainable Finance (ImpactSF), and Ena Derenoncourt, Senior Officer at the Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT and ACT-H Project Lead, share how climate-aligned finance is reshaping Ethiopia’s agricultural landscape. They highlight  how the ACT-H initiative, backed by the Gates Foundation, is piloting bundled green loans that combine credit with irrigation, insurance, and training to de-risk horticulture value chains and empower smallholder farmers. Dr. Grosjean and Ena highlight the ImpactSF Analyzer, an AI-enabled tool translating climate data into actionable credit and portfolio metrics for banks, allowing them to move from single-loan transactions to systemic portfolio design. They have discussed the alignment of these efforts with Ethiopia’s ESG regulations, NAFIR 2025–2030, and ACC models, positioning horticulture as a catalytic entry point for climate-smart investment. Ultimately, they envision a financial ecosystem where capital flows to resilient, inclusive, and nature-positive food systems—turning climate risk into a driver of opportunity. Section I: Setting the Context – Vision and Urgency Ethiopia’s agriculture is both the backbone of the economy and deeply vulnerable to climate volatility. What motivated CGIAR’s ImpactSF to engage directly with the country’s financial institutions through ACT-H? Agriculture is vital to Ethiopia’s economy but highly climate-vulnerable. By embedding science-based KPIs and blended finance tools, ImpactSF helps banks design inclusive, climate-smart loans for small-scale producers and agri-SMEs—strengthening resilience and driving systemic change toward inclusive, nature-positive food, land, and water systems. The Government of Ethiopia has built a strong agricultural extension system, complemented by the Agricultural Transformation Institute’s (ATI) flagship initiative—the Agricultural Commercialization Clusters (ACC). The ACC model organizes priority commodities and value chain actors into clusters, creating a platform for targeted support and systemic change. Through the ACT-H initiative, supported by the Gates Foundation and in collaboration with ATI and Precise, ImpactSF is introducing green finance products to scale solar-powered irrigation for horticulture. Financing these crops through climate-informed financing, de-risking approaches, and market partnerships strengthen farmer resilience and fosters sustainable growth. In addition, building the capacity of financial institutions to design and deliver climate-linked and gender-sensitive financial products is critical. Tailored solutions ensure that women, youth, and vulnerable households are meaningfully included, reinforcing Ethiopia’s efforts toward inclusive and resilient agricultural transformation. The ACT-H initiative is framed around climate-smart horticulture. Why horticulture, and why now? What makes it a catalytic entry point for climate-aligned finance in Ethiopia? Horticulture is high-value, labor-intensive, and central to many farmer’s livelihoods. Yet it is highly exposed to drought and rainfall shifts, making deployment of climate finance urgent. The ACT-H initiative focuses on solar-powered irrigation and other climate-smart inputs, equipping farmers while catalyzing broader agri-food transformation. Horticulture—particularly banana and avocado within ACCs—offers a catalytic entry point for climate-aligned finance: Horticulture offers significant economic and livelihood benefits, contributing to household incomes, nutrition, and exports, with target crops that are bankable and enjoy strong market demand. However, these crops are highly vulnerable to climate shocks, and without appropriate risk instruments, households often face distress sales and defaults. By combining loans with insurance, climate-smart inputs, and digital repayment options, smallholder farmers—many of whom are too large for microfinance but perceived as too risky by commercial banks—become ideal candidates for innovative climate-aligned investment. Strategically, this approach aligns with national priorities such as NAFIR 2025–2030, the National Agricultural Insurance Strategy, and Digital Ethiopia 2025, while Agricultural Commercialization Clusters (ACCs) provide a scalable platform for implementation. By targeting horticulture now, ACT-H can demonstrate how climate-aligned finance can de-risk agriculture, attract private capital, and deliver measurable adaptation and livelihood outcomes—setting the stage for replication across other value chains. What unique role does CGIAR—through ImpactSF—play in bridging scientific insights with financial decision-making in such high-stakes, low-margin sectors like smallholder farming? ImpactSF leverages decades of CGIAR science and expertise into practical tools for lenders, with an emphasis on local relevance. Through the AI-informed ImpactSF Analyzer and robust KPI frameworks, we make climate risk visible and financeable. This bridges research with day-to-day lending realities, which is especially important for smallholders and women farmers, who often face significant barriers and challenges to accessing finance. At ImpactSF and within the CGIAR, our work with farmers and farmer organizations gives us key insights into what is needed to create change from the bottom up. Through this role, ImpactSF ensures that financial products are not only bankable but also aligned with climate adaptation, mitigation, and resilience priorities, while advancing gender equity, youth inclusion, and environmental sustainability. Its ability to translate rigorous scientific evidence into actionable financial structures makes it uniquely positioned to bridge the gap between global climate finance standards (e.g., GCF, IFC, TCFD/IFRS S2) and the practical realities of Ethiopia’s smallholder systems. Section II: Climate Risk, Lending Challenges & Opportunity Framing Many Ethiopian banks reportedly have the liquidity but not the risk frameworks for agriculture. How is the ImpactSF Analyzer helping change that equation? This is a common challenge, banks across regions have liquidity but lack climate risk frameworks, limiting agri-lending. The ImpactSF Analyzer helps bridge this gap by identifying climate-smart investment opportunities, ensuring funding goes where it is needed. By integrating  scientific, financial and climate data, the Analyzer gives banks the confidence to design viable products that align with farmers’ realities and climate risk. By integrating scientific, financial, and climate data, the ImpactSF Analyzer enables comprehensive climate-smart lending. It supports risk-adjusted product design by aligning loans with seasonal cash flows, climate hazards, and insurance needs. It facilitates capital mobilization by producing risk metrics that attract concessional guarantees or additional liquidity. At the same time, it builds market confidence by tracking loan repayments, insurance uptake, and adoption of climate-smart agriculture practices, making agricultural finance more investable and resilient. The Analyzer ensures systematic, scalable expansion of climate-smart lending across Ethiopia. Could you explain how the tool translates climate data—like rainfall variability or drought hazards—into actionable metrics for credit scoring or portfolio design? The Analyzer takes climate data such as rainfall variability, drought frequency, or heat stress and links it directly to agricultural productivity risk at the crop and location level. Using CGIAR science, AI models and remote sensing, it projects yield impacts over the next 2–3 seasons, while also factoring in farmers’ adaptive capacity (e.g. irrigation, crop diversification). This produces forward-looking risk scores that can be integrated into credit scoring models or portfolio stress tests. For a lender, this means being able to differentiate between clients exposed to high vs. moderate climate risk, adjust loan conditions accordingly, and support anticipating default probabilities. At the portfolio level, the metrics allow banks to design more resilient sector exposures, set concentration limits, and steer capital toward climate-smart practices. Section III: Product Innovation, Tools & Bundled Finance The concept of bundled green finance—credit paired with irrigation, insurance, and training—was a major workshop highlight. What makes this model so promising for both lenders and farmers? Bundled finance reduces risk for both farmers and lenders. Pairing credit with irrigation, insurance, and training ensures farmers can repay loans while banks protect their portfolios. It’s a win-win model for resilience and growth. How are tools like the ImpactSF Analyzer enabling Ethiopian banks to go from a single-loan mindset to systems thinking—where value chains, repayment behavior, and environmental triggers are all interconnected? The Analyzer helps banks see farming systems, not just single loans. It links climate triggers, and value chain dynamics. This shifts lenders toward systemic, climate-smart portfolio design. Section IV: Systems Change, Policy & Inclusion Ethiopia’s regulators are rolling out new ESG reporting requirements. How is ImpactSF helping financial institutions align with this regulatory shift while strengthening climate-smart investment pipelines? The ESG rules present both challenges and opportunities. ImpactSF helps banks comply while building climate-smart pipelines through: ImpactSF supports financial institutions through a combination of capacity building, tools, and pipeline strengthening. It trains banks, MFIs, and insurers to design green finance products, including bundled credit, insurance, and solar-powered irrigation solutions. The ImpactSF Analyzer provides the data and insights needed to meet new ESG reporting requirements while designing stronger, more credible green finance products. Additionally, by applying a value chain lens, ImpactSF helps target priority sectors such as horticulture and livestock, scaling climate-smart products while ensuring measurable outcomes in gender inclusion, resilience, and productivity. ImpactSF turns new reporting requirements into an opportunity: building bankable, climate-smart products that attract concessional capital, reduce risk, and deliver real impact for farmers. What’s CGIAR’s broader vision for inclusive agri-finance in Ethiopia? Are you working to influence national policy, support rural banks, or scale models across other value chains? We work with banks, policymakers, and partners to shape national models. The aim is scalable finance across value chains and regions. This aligns with the CGIAR’s broader work in the region with the Ministry of Agriculture, National and Regional Agricultural Research Institutes, Ethiopian universities and both international and national development partners. There are the greatest number of CGIAR projects, initiatives, and funding in the East and Southern Africa (ESA) region, so it is a key area of our work. Section V: Scaling Impact & the Path Forward What’s next for ImpactSF and ACT-H in Ethiopia? Are there plans to pilot bundled loan products with partner institutions or integrate Analyzer insights into real-time lending decisions? Next, Act-H will co-develop bundled green loan products with partner banks and pilot innovative financing solutions in high-priority value chains. Insights from the ImpactSF Analyzer will feed into real-time lending, helping institutions actively manage climate risks. These pilots will lay the foundation for scale. How will success be measured—by hectares transformed, emissions reduced, capital deployed, or increased farmer incomes? Or is it something more systemic? Success means systemic change: capital flowing, risks reduced, and farmers empowered. It will be measured in farmer incomes, women’s access to finance, hectares under irrigation, and resilient lending portfolios. Above all, success means driving transformation toward a climate-smart financial ecosystem—one that helps turn Ethiopia’s climate challenges into investment opportunities. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3276/reishi-cordyceps-and-future-of-mycology-exclusive-with-dr-oli-genn-bash-on-smallholder-innovation-and-global-mushroom-markets.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3276/reishi-cordyceps-and-future-of-mycology-exclusive-with-dr-oli-genn-bash-on-smallholder-innovation-and-global-mushroom-markets.html Tue, 23 Sep 2025 16:20:11 +0530 In an exclusive Agrospectrum interview, Oli Genn-Bash, Founder of The Fungi Consultant and co-founder of the UKC Psychedelics Society, explored the rising wave of functional mushrooms as a high-value agricultural and wellness opportunity. He highlighted the potential for smallholder cultivation models, noting that with training, local spawn, and market access, species like Reishi and Cordyceps could thrive in Europe and Africa, particularly through circular substrate systems using agro-waste. Genn-Bash emphasized that quality control, traceability, and provenance labeling are becoming critical in premium European markets, while technology innovations such as solar-powered polyhouses could democratize cultivation in climate-stressed regions. On the consumer side, he traced the mushroom coffee phenomenon to post-pandemic health awareness, influencer culture, and functional beverage trends, forecasting consolidation by major FMCG players and growth in extracts, personalized supplements, and functional food products. Beyond consumption, he sees mushrooms as a bridge between cultural re-enchantment with nature and future innovations in myco-materials, adaptogen blends, and clinical applications, signaling a transformative horizon for fungal science. Medicinal Mushrooms from an Agricultural Point of View Mini Case Study Prompt: In India, several farmer cooperatives in Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh are piloting Reishi and Cordyceps cultivation as a high-value crop, with margins reported at 2–3x those of traditional horticulture. How do you see this kind of smallholder model evolving in Europe or Africa? There's an opportunity for smallholder mushroom cultivation projects to scale where there’s a balance between suitable microclimates, reliable substrates, and access to training & markets, as well as furthering education to help prospective customers understand the benefits of these mushrooms. The key enablers would be low-cost spawn and training, potential for cooperatives to be set up, simple quality-control protocols, and tailored strains for local conditionsIn Europe the model would likely focus on supply chains and the quality of the final product (e.g. organic, dual extraction depending on the type of mushroom, lab testing to show bioactive compounds) sold to premium wellness and herbal markets. In Africa, the biggest upside is circularity and diversification: mushrooms can become an income layer on top of other commodities such as coffee, cocoa, or fruit and reduce seasonality risk. Mini Case Study Prompt: In Kenya, a social enterprise has partnered with coffee growers to use spent coffee grounds as substrate for Oyster and Reishi mushrooms, creating additional income for farmers and reducing waste. Could similar circular models be scaled globally? Circular substrate models create more sustainability and affordability for cultivation. Spent coffee has good nutrients and is often free; pairing it with agricultural waste (straw, sawdust) improves yields. Globally, scale depends on logistics: Collection systems, local inoculation units (so spawn doesn’t travel far), and end-market demand. Social enterprises can add community benefit layers (waste reduction, new income). Using spent coffee alone can be difficult due to how long it keeps for, so it’s ideal to combine with agricultural waste for prolonged use. This could be scaled strategically with local cultivation hubs and partnerships with hospitality/coffee chains for regular supply. Certification for food safety might be required to scale this on a global level Mini Case Study Prompt: China’s Fujian province has government-backed spawn labs that provide training, low-cost inoculum, and buyback guarantees to farmers. Could this “extension plus guaranteed market” model work in the UK or EU ? This could work but with some adaptation. The “extension + guaranteed market” model addresses two huge blockers: technical capacity and market risk. In the UK/EU, the model could be run by regional agricultural colleges, social enterprises, or cooperatives with public or philanthropic seed funding. The differences in the UK or EU would be that labour costs are higher, with stricter regulations on food safety and medical claims, as well as more restrictions regarding use of land in places like the UK. You would need to implement transparent quality standards, commercial-scale processing or extract partners to absorb volumes, and a hybrid funding model (public grants + small price differential for technical services). A buyback guarantee could focus initially on processed goods (dried mushrooms or extracts) where there is more scope to understand traceability and certify the quality standard. Mini Case Study Prompt: Researchers in Thailand have developed low-cost, solar-powered polyhouses for Cordyceps militaris cultivation, making it a viable option even in hotter climates. Could similar tech democratize medicinal mushroom farming in climate-stressed regions? Yes this could democratise it, as it opens the door to cultivating species which might otherwise be restricted by the local climate. The important thing to note is that conditions must be repeatable and consistent training should be implemented to maintain the quality of the end product. Mini Case Study Prompt: Vietnam has started branding its lingzhi (reishi) exports with provincial origin labels and blockchain traceability. Could Europe do something similar for small-scale growers? The consumers in Europe are increasingly paying more attention to traceability to know where the product has originated, and the level of quality. Provincial branding combined with simple digital traceability (QR codes showing grower, substrate, harvest date, lab test results) would allow cultivators to build trust and open themselves up to wider markets. Blockchain might be overcomplicating things when you can implement traceability into existing systems. The challenge might be how much this costs for small-scale cultivators to adopt. The Mushroom Coffee Phenomenon Beyond the Buzzword: Mushroom coffee has moved from hipster cafés to mainstream supermarket shelves. What, in your view, has driven its adoption — health science, influencer culture, or pandemic-era biohacking trends? People have been more concerned with their health since the Covid pandemic, and our lives have become more busy and possibly more stressful during this time. Mushroom coffee has provided an opportunity for people to engage with fungi in a familiar morning routine, whilst being a convenient way to obtain the benefits of the mushrooms. Certain health narratives such as the need to improve cognitive performance, reduce stress levels, or increase energy are just a few examples of what has been driving the trend, as well as the ritual of coffee and the rise of influencers and wider distribution markets opening up. Cultivation & Supply Chain Insights From Forest to Farm: Cultivating medicinal mushrooms is notoriously tricky — requiring sterile environments, controlled substrates, and patient timing. Can you walk us through what “good cultivation practice” looks like in this space? Successful cultivation of medicinal mushrooms begins with selecting good genetics and establishing clean, scalable spawn production. Maintaining sterility, implementing basic quality control, and ensuring that batches are fully traceable are essential steps in this phase. The next critical focus is on the substrate. Each mushroom species requires a specific substrate, and careful attention must be paid to moisture levels as well as proper pasteurization or sterilization techniques to optimize growth. Creating a controlled environment for fruiting is equally important. Consistency in humidity, temperature, air exchange, and lighting ensures predictable and high-quality yields. Alongside this, strict pest control and staff hygiene must be enforced, with daily logging of waste disposal to maintain cleanliness and prevent contamination. Post-harvest handling is another crucial step. Mushrooms must be dried properly, moisture content checked, and packaging completed quickly to preserve bioactive compounds. Regular testing and traceability are also vital, including lab analyses for identity, heavy metals, and microbes, and maintaining batch IDs from spawn through to harvest. Where feasible, lab testing of bioactive compounds adds an extra layer of quality assurance. Finally, keeping simple yet thorough records—tracking yields, failure modes, and environmental conditions—supports continuous improvement, scalability, and compliance with quality standards.Global Sourcing: China remains a dominant supplier for many medicinal mushroom ingredients. How do you see Europe and the UK building resilient, traceable, and possibly regenerative mushroom cultivation systems locally? We need to invest in more education in places like the UK where we can open up training for early career mycologists. We might see the creation of regional spawn hubs, the introduction of training programmes at agricultural colleges, incentives for regenerative substrate sourcing (using agro-waste), and a marketplace that rewards traceability and high quality products. It would be great to see public funding or a combination of public/private funding in places like the UK or EU to limit the risk for early career cultivators. Market & Investment Outlook Functional Beverages 2.0: Kombucha and matcha once had their heyday — now mushroom coffee is on the rise. Where do you see this category going in the next 5–10 years? Could we see major FMCG players acquiring or building mushroom coffee brands? It seems like we might be seeing market consolidation, where big FMCG players could either acquire successful independent brands or build in-house product lines because the category fits into mainstream tea/coffee/functional beverage portfolios. We’ll also see more of a focus on the creation of premium products, and more focus on the functional sub-categories such as sleep, focus, or relaxation. Regulation plays a big role in how these products can be marketed, so we should expect to see more neutral language talking about ‘support’ rather than making any kind of health claims. Investment appetite will favor vertically integrated players who control spawn → processing → branded distribution, where products such as extracts provide more value than just dried fungi. Intersection with Psychedelics & Culture Mindful Consumption: You’ve been involved in the psychedelic education space. Do you think the functional mushroom boom is quietly priming the public for a broader conversation about psychoactive fungi and mental health therapies? I actually think in places like the UK or USA, the opposite is occurring - people have been consuming magic mushrooms for many decades, but the functional mushroom boom is quite new. I think that psychoactive fungi have opened up people to the potential for many different types of fungi to heal us on the functional level. The use of psychoactive fungi in therapeutic settings precedes the rise in popularity of functional mushroom supplements, however it certainly makes it easier to talk about the benefit of psychoactive fungi now that everyone is talking about mushrooms such as Lion’s Mane, Reishi, or Cordyceps. The issue is how the conversation surrounding these therapies relates to the mushrooms themselves, and whether or not we’ll see a dominance in synthetic compounds to achieve specific aims, rather than utilising the power of the whole organism. Cultural Capital: Mushrooms have been spiritual symbols for centuries — from Siberian shamans to Mesoamerican rituals. Are we seeing a modern re-enchantment of fungi as part of a cultural shift toward reconnecting with nature? Yes, I believe that consumption of mushrooms allows us to relate more to Animist worldviews, where we can exist with nature in an interrelationship, rather than viewing fungi as simple commodities for our benefit. We can ascribe some sense of agency to the mushrooms, where they are assisting us with their energy and wisdom to exist more comfortably with the natural world. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that mushrooms are becoming more popular as we cause more destruction to the natural environment - they are clearly showing up at a time when we need them the most! Future of Mycology & Fungal Innovation Beyond Coffee: If mushroom coffee is the gateway, what’s the next frontier for medicinal mushrooms — mycelium-based supplements, adaptogen blends, or even functional food tech innovations like mycoprotein ? The next frontier for medicinal mushrooms is expected to see a rise in high-bioavailability extracts. Advanced techniques such as liposomal technology and ultrasound-assisted extraction, combined with carriers like vegetable glycerin, will allow better delivery of key compounds. There will likely be a shift in focus from traditional beta-glucans toward terpenes and other bioactive molecules, alongside the development of clinically-backed blends. Personalized fungal supplements are also emerging, with small-batch, carefully analyzed formulations targeting specific needs such as sleep, cognition, and inflammation. This tailored approach enables consumers to select products that align closely with their health goals. Functional food technologies represent another growth avenue. Mycoprotein and hybrid foods are expanding beyond meat substitutes into functional snacks and cognitive bars, integrating mushrooms into everyday diets in innovative ways. Beyond nutrition, myco-materials are gaining traction in industrial applications, including packaging and leather alternatives. These cross-industry uses are attracting investment and advancing fungal science in sustainability-focused sectors. Finally, clinical translation remains a key opportunity. Research on functional mushrooms is increasingly being integrated into treatment plans, providing a pathway for evidence-based health interventions and bridging the gap between wellness products and medical applications. ---- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3275/brazils-drought-resilient-sorghum-powering-diversified-bioenergy-future-alexandre-ferreira-da-silva-embrapa.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3275/brazils-drought-resilient-sorghum-powering-diversified-bioenergy-future-alexandre-ferreira-da-silva-embrapa.html Fri, 19 Sep 2025 16:05:38 +0530 An exclusive Agrospectrum interview, Alexandre Ferreira da Silva, Research Scientist at Embrapa Maize and Sorghum, reveals why sorghum is no longer just a supporting player—it’s becoming a star of Brazil’s bioenergy revolution. With unmatched drought resilience and off-season planting advantages, sorghum acts as climate insurance while supercharging existing corn ethanol plants. High-starch hybrids and valuable co-products like DDG are driving its economic edge, making every hectare count. Silva highlights how RenovaBio’s carbon credit program turns sorghum’s low-carbon profile into a tangible revenue boost. Looking beyond borders, Brazil’s sorghum is poised to hit the global stage, with China emerging as a key export destination, signaling a new era for the crop in energy and trade. Brazil has long been the gold standard in sugarcane ethanol. Why is sorghum now entering the conversation, and does it represent an insurance policy against climate volatility or the next growth frontier? Brazil's bioenergy matrix is widely recognized as a global model of sustainability and efficiency, historically supported by ethanol production from sugarcane. However, the sector has undergone significant diversification in recent years, driven by the quest for greater resilience and the expansion of production into new agricultural frontiers. National biofuel production reached a record volume of almost 46 billion liters of ethanol and biodiesel in 2024, a milestone that reinforces Brazil's leadership role in the global energy transition and the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Within this context of growth and diversification, corn has emerged as a protagonist, with its ethanol production growing 25 per cent in the 2024/2025 harvest and reaching 7.6 billion liters. In this scenario, sorghum, which has historically been seen as a supporting actor in Brazilian agriculture, is emerging as a promising alternative and a strategic pillar for the continued expansion of the bioenergy matrix. The rise of sorghum is not a simple market fluctuation but rather a structural change, based on its unique ability to serve as "climate insurance" and its industrial synergy with existing ethanol production chains. Sorghum's agronomic resilience, especially under conditions of water stress and high temperatures, provides a direct economic and industrial benefit. Its ability to thrive in regions where sugarcane is not adapted and to maintain productivity even in late plantings reduces the risk of crop failures for producers. For the industry, this predictability in the supply of raw material allows for the extension of ethanol production beyond the sugarcane harvest period, ensuring a stable supply throughout the year. The crop's physical robustness thus translates into a more secure business model that is less susceptible to climate risks. While sorghum’s off-season planting and use of degraded pastures reduce direct competition with corn and food crops, how do factors like climate variability, land-use pressures, or policy incentives impact the long-term sustainability and scalability of sorghum for ethanol in Brazil ? Sorghum is a warm-climate crop with efficient drought tolerance mechanisms, making it ideal for regions with lower water availability. As a C4 plant, sorghum tolerates high levels of solar radiation, responding with high photosynthetic rates and minimizing water loss through its stomata. Although sorghum is resilient, its ideal productivity is achieved at temperatures ranging from 20ºC to 33°C, while temperatures above 38ºC or below 16ºC can limit its plant development. The most significant cultivation strategy for sorghum in Brazil is its positioning in the "off-season," or second crop, typically planted after the soybean harvest. This planting dynamic provides a crucial competitive advantage, as sorghum maintains good productivity even in later plantings, after February, when corn crops usually experience yield drops. This characteristic eliminates direct competition with corn for more favorable planting windows, allowing sorghum to capitalize on existing areas. The increase in sorghum cultivation and processing in Brazil reflects a substantial growth movement in the sector. In the 2024/2025 harvest, sorghum production in the country reached 5.96 million tons, a 34.8 per cent growth compared to the previous cycle. This advance was driven by a 9.6 per cent increase in planted area, which reached 1.59 million hectares, and a 23 per cent improvement in the national average productivity, reaching 3,731 kg/ha. Table 1. Sorghum Production in Brazil: Area, Yield and Production (Conab 2025) Indicator2024/2025 HarvestAnnual GrowthPlanted Area1.59 million hectares+9.6 per centYield3,731 kg/ha+23 per centProduction5.96 million tons+34.8 per cent The expansion of using food crops for biofuel production often raises the global "food vs. fuel" debate. However, the use of sorghum in Brazil minimizes this conflict. As a versatile crop used for both human and animal consumption as well as for biofuel production, sorghum integrates into an agricultural model that, in the Brazilian case, frequently uses the conversion of degraded pasture areas into croplands, reducing direct competition with food production on highly fertile lands. Given that sorghum’s economic competitiveness relies heavily on high starch content and co-product value, how do variations in hybrid performance, growing conditions, or market demand for DDG affect the reliability of these economic advantages ? The yield of grain sorghum in ethanol production is equivalent to or even surpasses that of corn, directly depending on the starch content in the grains. Ethanol production is directly correlated with the starch content of the grains. Therefore, knowing the characteristics of each hybrid and the most effective management strategies can lead to gains in ethanol production yield. Obtaining starch contents above 70 per cent is important for sorghum to be competitive with corn. This correlation between a specific agronomic characteristic (high starch content) and the economic viability of industrial processing is a determining factor. The successful development of high-starch hybrids reduces the cost of the raw material per liter of ethanol produced, serving as a technological and economic driver for sorghum's competitiveness. The co-products generated during processing, such as DDG (Dried Distillers Grains), are of high importance for the economic viability of grain ethanol production. Although the sorghum ethanol production process does not yield oil like corn, sorghum DDG is a valuable protein meal for animal nutrition, generating additional revenue that helps offset production costs and increases the grain's competitiveness. While sorghum is presented as a cost-effective alternative to corn for ethanol, how do fluctuations in sorghum prices or potential supply constraints affect its economic competitiveness, and does this risk offset the advantages of blending it with corn ? The economic competitiveness of sorghum as a raw material for ethanol is based primarily on its lower cost compared to corn. Market analysis indicates that during periods of high corn prices, ethanol production from this cereal can become less economically favorable, which reinforces the need for raw material diversification. Additionally, the industrial synergy between sorghum and corn is a key economic factor. Plants that already process corn require only "a few modifications" to their facilities to also process sorghum. This technological compatibility minimizes the capital investment barrier for production expansion. Many plants indicate their intention to work with blends of corn and sorghum, so that the percentage of sorghum used results in the minimum possible alterations to the production line already established for corn ethanol. In this way, sorghum emerges as an economic strategy to amortize production costs. On the other hand, some plants operate with exclusive lines for the production of ethanol from sorghum. These are being strategically installed in areas suitable for its cultivation, associated with the fostering of producers through the predictability of raw material purchase (futures market). Table 2. Economic Advantage Comparison between Ethanol Raw Materials Raw MaterialRelative Cost of Raw MaterialEthanol Yield (L/ton)Value of Co-productsIndustrial AdaptationSorghumLower than cornSimilar to cornHigh-value DDGRequires few modifications in corn plantsCornHigher than sorghumReference parameterDDG and oilConsolidated industrial facilitiesSugarcaneVaries with sugar priceVaries with harvest and genotypeBagasse, electrical energy, by-productsRequires dedicated facilities The low capital investment barrier is the direct cause of the rapid expansion of sorghum ethanol production. With the minimum investment required to adapt existing units, the industry can quickly integrate sorghum into its supply chain, allowing for decentralized and efficient expansion. This synergy between corn and sorghum plants is the main mechanism that elevates the cereal from a simple alternative to a "protagonist" in the Brazilian bioenergy matrix. Sorghum also contributes to the overall competitiveness of the biofuel sector. Brazil’s RenovaBio has put carbon intensity at the center of ethanol economics. How is sorghum positioned in the CBIO market compared with sugarcane ? The National Biofuels Policy, known as RenovaBio, is a regulatory framework aimed at incentivizing the decarbonization of the Brazilian transport sector. The program is structured into three main axes: decarbonization targets, production certification, and the market for Decarbonization Credits (CBIOs). The central mechanism is the CBIO, in which each credit is equivalent to one ton of avoided carbon emissions. To issue CBIOs, the biofuel producer must obtain an Energy-Environmental Efficiency Note (NEEA), which is a value inversely proportional to the carbon intensity (CI) of their product. The carbon footprint of sorghum ethanol is being quantified by EMBRAPA for registration with the National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuel. The calculator used to calculate the NEEA and CI, called RenovaCalc, is being updated so that sorghum can be used as one of the raw materials. It is believed that its accreditation will increase the interest of certified plants due to the generation of CBIOs. RenovaBio acts as a powerful mechanism that goes beyond mere incentive, creating a feedback loop that directly influences producers' investment decisions. By monetizing the environmental benefits of a biofuel, the policy makes crops like sorghum more economically attractive, whose sustainable profile translates into an additional revenue stream via CBIOs. In this way, the program not only encourages but financially rewards the adoption of more resilient and lower carbon footprint raw materials, accelerating the diversification and sustainability of the Brazilian bioenergy matrix. With the U.S. and China dominating global sorghum trade, how does Brazil carve out a role as both a sorghum grower and ethanol exporter ? In the global sorghum scenario, the United States is the main exporter, followed by Australia and Argentina. Brazil, which historically exported modest volumes, mainly to South Africa and Spain, is positioned for a significant change. Commercial tensions between the USA and China, which resulted in the imposition of tariffs and the suspension of American sorghum imports due to sanitary concerns, created a market gap that Brazil is in a strategic position to fill. China's urgency in finding an alternative supplier was evidenced by the signing of a "pre-listing" agreement between the two countries. This agreement accelerates the process of qualifying exporters, allowing the Brazilian Ministry of Agriculture to certify and qualify companies, streamlining commercial flow and strengthening mutual trust. The first shipments of Brazilian sorghum to China are expected to begin in 2026, with projections that the new market could demand up to 7.9 million tons per year. The emergence of a robust export market to China, while it may initially generate an increase in domestic sorghum prices, serves as a powerful catalyst for the maturation of the Brazilian value chain. The influx of guaranteed revenue and the demand from such a large market incentivize farmers to significantly expand the planted area and invest in productivity improvements. This increase in scale, in turn, attracts more investment in plant breeding and processing infrastructure, creating economies of scale and a more resilient sector. The geopolitical scenario, therefore, transforms a potential risk of price increasing into a long-term opportunity to consolidate the sorghum industry in Brazil, promoting both the export market and the domestic bioenergy value chain. While sorghum is positioned as a strategic pillar for Brazil’s bioenergy resilience, what risks or limitations—such as market volatility, policy changes, or technological bottlenecks—could prevent it from fully realizing this potential ? The analysis demonstrates that sorghum is a vital and growing component of the Brazilian bioenergy matrix. Its rise is driven by a confluence of technical, economic, and political factors that position it not just as an alternative, but as a strategic pillar for the resilience of the sector. Sorghum offers agronomic insurance against climate variability, an industrial complement that optimizes corn ethanol infrastructure, and a sustainability profile that perfectly aligns it with decarbonization policies like RenovaBio. To maximize the crop's potential, continued and intensified investment in research and genetic improvement is recommended. The focus should be on developing hybrids with higher starch contents for grain sorghum. From a political perspective, the continuous integration of sorghum into national bioenergy strategies is suggested, with policies that recognize and reward its specific environmental benefits within programs like RenovaBio. In summary, sorghum is on track to become a fundamental element for a more diversified, resilient, and sustainable Brazilian bioeconomy. Its ability to thrive in challenging conditions and to integrate efficiently into existing infrastructure allows the country to meet domestic demand for renewable energy while strengthening its position in the global scenario of food and energy security. ---- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3269/why-africas-future-lies-in-biofortified-crops-and-precision-breeding-exclusive-with-prof-adenle.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3269/why-africas-future-lies-in-biofortified-crops-and-precision-breeding-exclusive-with-prof-adenle.html Thu, 18 Sep 2025 18:00:50 +0530 In this Exclusive AgroSpectrum Interview, Prof. Ademola Adenle, PhD (Nottingham), MPP (Oxon)—Senior Special Adviser on Agricultural Innovation at Nigeria’s Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, and the inaugural laureate of the TWAS–M S Swaminathan Award for Food and Peace—articulates a bold vision for science-driven agricultural transformation. He underscores the pivotal role of climate-resilient and biofortified crops in combating hunger and malnutrition, while insisting that true impact lies in farmer-led adoption and participatory systems. Prof. Adenle highlights how genomic tools, AI, and precision breeding are redefining crop science in Africa, but cautions that sustained progress requires cohesive Pan-African policies and inclusive engagement with farming communities. Above all, he emphasizes that resilient, nutritious, and locally adapted food systems are not just instruments of food security, but essential foundations for peace, stability, and prosperity across Africa. You’ve been honored with the MS Swaminathan Award for Food and Peace—an accolade that celebrates scientific innovation in service of humanity. What is the big-picture vision that drives your work on high-yielding, climate-resilient, and fortified crops? As the first recipient of the inaugural World Academy of Sciences and Swaminathan Award for Food and Peace, I am deeply honored and grateful for this recognition. I have no doubt that the jury carefully examined my research at the intersection of the natural and social sciences, where science and innovation play a critical role in addressing food insecurity, malnutrition, poverty, and ultimately fostering peace. My work is particularly significant in Africa, where food insecurity breeds desperation, malnutrition fuels poverty, and chronic hunger can lead to unrest. Yet, when science and innovation are linked to local action, meaningful change begins to take root. This underscores the urgent need to develop high-yielding, climate-resilient, and fortified crops to tackle low productivity, drought, and nutrition-related diseases in developing regions, including African countries. In this regard, I led the largest study in the history of GM agriculture in Africa. I have long believed that GM technology could help address part of these challenges, especially by developing crops tailored to local needs. However, the failure to meaningfully engage local stakeholders has often hindered progress in achieving the desired outcomes. Nigeria faces extreme weather patterns from droughts in the north to floods in the south. How do you see crop science evolving to not just survive these conditions but thrive in them? Nigeria’s agriculture sits at the frontline of climate change, facing recurring droughts in the north and floods in the south, both of which threaten food security and rural livelihoods. Crop science must evolve not just to help farmers survive these shocks, but to enable them to thrive despite them. This means intensifying research and development in climate-resilient crops such as maize, rice, sorghum, and millet that are capable of withstanding these extreme conditions while maintaining high yields and nutritional quality. To achieve this, Nigeria needs sustained investment in crop science, with strong collaboration between government, local scientists, and farmers. Developing locally adapted varieties that combine resilience with productivity is critical. Equally important is ensuring that farmers can access and adopt these innovations through effective extension systems, supportive policies, and market linkages. If approached strategically, crop science can transform Nigeria’s vulnerability into resilience, building an agricultural system that not only endures climate shocks but also drives improved incomes, nutrition, and livelihoods nationwide. Biofortification has been called the “silent revolution” in public health. How do you design crops that are both nutrient-rich and culturally acceptable to the communities that grow and consume them? The consumption of vegetables, legumes, and fruits is one of the most sustainable ways to reduce and control micronutrient deficiencies in resource-poor communities. Indigenous vegetables, in particular, are not only rich in micronutrients but also possess other desirable traits. They are often easier to grow, resistant to pests and diseases, and well-suited to local tastes. However, in many countries, including India and Nigeria, indigenous crops are at risk of extinction as they are increasingly replaced by high-yielding commercial varieties. Once an indigenous variety is lost, it cannot be recovered, underscoring the urgent need for preservation. During my award ceremony, I had the opportunity to engage with the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) and the National Bureau for Plant Genetic Resources (NBPGR). I learned that NBPGR is not only conducting research on indigenous crops but also conserving tens of thousands of germplasm varieties across the country. In contrast, Nigeria’s efforts to conserve nutrient-rich and culturally significant germplasm remain limited. Nigeria can learn from India’s model, where designated institutes are mandated to conserve different crops through regional gene banks. In addition, developing countries should actively promote biofortified crops, particularly local varieties, to address micronutrient deficiencies and improve vitamin intake. This can only be achieved through stronger collaboration between scientists, policymakers, and local farmers to ensure that improved varieties remain both nutritionally beneficial and culturally acceptable. Many breakthrough agricultural technologies fail to reach smallholder farmers at scale. What’s your blueprint for bridging the gap between innovation and adoption at the grassroots level ? Understanding local farmers’ varieties is essential for the successful adoption of new agricultural technologies. Many underinvested crops in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) have lower adoption rates compared to Asia and South America, largely because they remain traditional low-yielding varieties. However, adoption rates vary significantly from region to region and country to country. For instance, the adoption of improved groundnut varieties in Tanzania is only 19 per cent—about half the rate observed in Malawi, particularly for modern varieties. Farmers seeking improved varieties often face limited options due to the narrow portfolio supported by agricultural input delivery agencies. Addressing this challenge requires targeted research and development programmes that help farmers upgrade underinvested crops, with strong involvement of local researchers. Evidence shows that high adoption rates of new agri-innovations are possible when delivered through farmer-led systems, underscoring their effectiveness. To bridge the gap between innovation and grassroots adoption, it is vital to promote participatory and inclusive training approaches such as farmer field schools and result demonstrations. These methods, designed to align with adult education, enhance proximity between trainers and learners, making knowledge transfer more effective. Accordingly, farmer-led knowledge dissemination systems should prioritise in-person training sessions supported by hands-on demonstrations of new technologies in target communities How are tools like genomic sequencing, AI-based climate modeling, and precision breeding transforming your crop development process—and what’s the next frontier ? Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies—including gene editing, synthetic biology, smart irrigation, artificial intelligence (AI), and precision breeding, are emerging as promising solutions for the future of agriculture. These innovations will be critical in developing high-yielding crop varieties with superior adaptability to changing and unpredictable climates. Such advances are imperative not only for ensuring food security, but also for sustaining biomass production and preserving ecosystem services. For example, gene editing offers a more precise and efficient approach compared to GMOs or traditional breeding, enabling the development of crops with targeted traits such as drought tolerance, pest resistance, or enhanced nutritional content. Similarly, AI facilitates high-throughput phenotyping, functional gene analysis, and the processing of extensive environmental datasets, revolutionising agricultural decision-making by transforming fragmented market and field information into systematic, data-driven breeding strategies. By combining these tools, agriculture can move towards a more resilient and sustainable future, where innovation directly addresses the pressing challenges of productivity, climate adaptation, and nutrition. Agriculture doesn’t operate in a vacuum. How should governments, regional bodies, and research institutions collaborate to create enabling environments for climate-resilient and fortified crops? A Pan-African agricultural policy should adopt a whole-of-government approach that considers regional challenges while aligning with national agricultural innovations. Such a policy must address the concerns of smallholder farmers, integrate them into domestic and regional markets, and ultimately graduate them into global value chains. Scaling up innovation will be critical, particularly through the introduction of locally relevant agricultural technologies that enhance climate resilience, improve incomes, and strengthen rural livelihoods. This requires policies that are regionally coordinated yet locally informed. For instance, climate-resilient measures that succeed in one locality may not seamlessly translate to other regions with different soils, climates, or market structures. The success of each initiative often hinges on adequate funding, technical expertise, and sustained policy support, resources that may not always be available at scale. To overcome these barriers, policymakers must design robust replication strategies that account for local variations. This includes adapting extension materials, maintaining flexible budgets to address unforeseen challenges, and establishing continuous feedback loops with local stakeholders to iteratively refine methodologies. At the same time, global advocacy for climate-resilient technologies often fails to align with regional or national realities. While this misalignment complicates implementation, it can also create opportunities for cross-sectoral innovation, provided that solutions are tailored to Pan-African policy frameworks grounded in inclusive stakeholder engagement. Strong national government advocacy, coupled with active involvement of farmers and scientists, will be vital to ensuring that innovation meets real needs on the ground. Partnerships between public agencies, private firms, and community organizations will further strengthen this agenda. By pooling resources, fostering technological breakthroughs, and opening new market niches for climate-resilient commodities, such collaborations can accelerate the transition toward a more sustainable and resilient African agricultural system Beyond yield metrics, what indicators—economic, nutritional, and social—do you use to gauge the success of your interventions? The lack of harmonised indicators or metrics in monitoring and evaluation (M&E) frameworks, whether for measuring economic, nutritional, or social impacts, often makes it difficult to track the effective implementation of new agricultural technology programmes. Indicators should therefore be prioritised and remain flexible, adapting to the development stage of each project as well as the information needs of stakeholders. For instance, biofortification programmes evolve through different implementation stages, from the breeding phase to the introduction of biofortified crops and eventually to scaling. Along this pathway, the focus of indicators typically shifts: early stages emphasize programme outputs, while later stages assess outcomes and impacts, requiring different sets of factors to be considered. The number and type of indicators may also change over time, with the scaling phase demanding cost-efficient prioritisation of M&E activities tailored to the specific technology. Further research is needed to test, revise, and develop mechanisms that harmonise M&E frameworks across programmes, institutions, countries, and regions. Such harmonisation will be crucial in ensuring comparability, improving accountability, and guiding evidence-based decisions to maximise the impact of agricultural innovations.  Is there a particular farmer, community, or moment in the field that has crystallised the importance of your work? Yes, there have been several moments in the field that crystallised the importance of my work, particularly during my research on GMOs across multiple African countries. In conversations with farmers, a recurring theme was their strong desire to be included in the decision-making and development processes of new crop technologies. Many emphasized the importance of prioritising their local cultivars and varieties, which are deeply tied to their cultural practices, diets, and resilience strategies. This reinforced to me that for new technologies to succeed, whether GMOs or other innovations, they must not be imposed from the top down but rather built upon what farmers already know and value. Farmers repeatedly reminded me that adoption, scaling, and diffusion of new crop varieties can only occur when technologies are relevant to their realities. In many cases, farmers expressed gratitude that a scientist like myself was actively voicing these concerns on their behalf. Too often, their perspectives are overlooked, sometimes due to external pressures from governments, donors, or private sector interests. These field experiences crystallised my conviction that inclusive engagement, farmer participation, and respect for local varieties are not just desirable, but essential if agricultural innovations are to be impactful and sustainable in Africa. What lessons from Nigeria’s agricultural transformation can be exported to other African nations facing similar climate and nutrition challenges? One of the key lessons from Nigeria’s agricultural transformation that can be exported to other African nations is the deliberate focus on empowering youth and women in agriculture. By providing targeted support to these groups, Nigeria has sought to boost productivity, enhance agribusiness opportunities, and in turn contribute not only to economic growth but also to improved livelihoods at the household level. Another important lesson is Nigeria’s investment in research and development programmes aimed at tackling climate and nutrition challenges simultaneously. For example, significant efforts have been made in developing and promoting biofortified crops such as cassava, millet, maize, and sweet potato to address widespread micronutrient deficiencies-a pressing public health challenge across the continent. With government and partner support, the inclusion of biofortified foods in traditional school meal programmes has already led to measurable improvements in vitamin A, zinc, and iron intake among children. In addition, Nigeria is investing in the development of drought-tolerant crop varieties that are resilient to the impacts of climate change. These efforts underscore the importance of adapting agricultural research to local contexts and prioritising varieties that are culturally acceptable and widely consumed. However, an important lesson for Africa as a whole is that innovation alone is not sufficient. Scaling and adoption require parallel investments in educational campaigns, improved supply chains, and the creation of demand for both biofortified and climate-resilient crops. By aligning research with farmer needs, strengthening awareness, and ensuring access, African nations can accelerate adoption and diffusion of agricultural innovations that improve nutrition, build resilience, and drive inclusive growth.  The MS Swaminathan Award connects agriculture with peace. How do you see secure, nutritious, and climate-resilient food systems contributing to social stability in Africa? The M S Swaminathan Award rightly highlights the nexus between agriculture and peace, and I firmly believe that secure, nutritious, and climate-resilient food systems are foundational to social stability in Africa. The impacts of climate change on agriculture in the Global South, and Africa in particular, are both direct and insidious. Major staples such as wheat, maize, and rice are being undermined by shifting rainfall patterns, rising temperatures, and the growing frequency of extreme weather events. These stresses not only reduce yields but also lower micronutrient content, such as zinc and iron, intensifying a public health crisis in regions already burdened by malnutrition. The vulnerability of Africa’s food systems is further exposed by global interdependencies. For example, droughts across the developing world and the Russia-Ukraine war have disrupted grain supplies and destabilised both local and global markets. The resulting food shortages, combined with price spikes, have already fueled social unrest in several African countries, underscoring the link between food insecurity and instability. To overcome these challenges, Africa must prioritise both adaptation and mitigation strategies. This includes pursuing bold policies that accelerate the development and adoption of climate-resilient crop varieties tailored to smallholder farmers; investing in smart irrigation and climate-smart farming practices; and putting in place long-term agricultural policies that reduce dependency on imported staples by encouraging the cultivation of locally adaptable crops. Equally important is government support for capacity-building, rural road networks, and modern storage facilities to strengthen supply chains and reduce post-harvest losses. By creating food systems that are secure, nutritious, and resilient, Africa can not only safeguard public health and improve livelihoods but also prevent hunger-driven unrest and contribute to lasting peace and stability across the continent ----- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com ) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3263/billion-dollar-microbe-market-transforming-global-vegetable-supply-chains.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3263/billion-dollar-microbe-market-transforming-global-vegetable-supply-chains.html Wed, 17 Sep 2025 11:27:31 +0530 For over fifty years, synthetic fertilisers powered global food production but caused soil degradation, water contamination, and greenhouse-gas emissions, prompting a shift toward sustainable alternatives. Biofertilisers—live microbial products—are emerging as a mainstream solution, improving nutrient uptake, plant resilience, and produce quality while integrating with precision agriculture systems. Policy support, particularly in India, the EU, and Denmark, is accelerating adoption through subsidies, regulatory compliance, and carbon-credit incentives. Regional case studies demonstrate that microbial inputs, when combined with sensor-guided fertigation and AI-driven management, can reduce synthetic nitrogen use by 15–35 per cent , boost yields, and enhance market value. The global takeaway: biofertilisers are not just environmentally necessary but a strategic enabler of profitable, precision-driven vegetable farming. For decades, synthetic nitrogen and phosphate fertilisers were the workhorses of the Green Revolution — turbocharging yields, slashing food prices, and feeding billions. But that victory came with a steep bill: degraded soils, polluted water, rising greenhouse gases, and dependence on inputs whose prices swing with global markets. The rules of fertilisation are now being rewritten. In high-value vegetable farming, the shift is unmistakable. Sustainability mandates, precision agtech, and microbial breakthroughs are pushing growers toward a new playbook. Biofertilisers — living microbes that boost nutrient uptake, soil health, and crop resilience — are stepping out of the margins and into the heart of production. They don’t just cut the fertiliser bill; they raise produce quality, strengthen plants against stress, and slot neatly into sensor-driven, fertigation-ready systems from India to Denmark. The question is no longer if they work — but how fast they can scale and reshape the economics of vegetable farming. From Idea to Instrument: The Biofertiliser Opportunity The science behind biofertilisers is solid. Symbiotic bacteria like Rhizobium, phosphate-solubilising microbes, and mycorrhizal fungi unlock bound nutrients, fix atmospheric nitrogen, and boost water-use efficiency. Meta-analyses show that, under proper management, biofertilisers can replace 20–30 per cent of synthetic N/P in vegetables without sacrificing yield — while improving firmness, vitamin levels, and shelf life. The market is catching up fast. IMARC Group projects the global biofertiliser sector to hit $2.5 billion in 2024, growing at over 11 per cent CAGR through 2030 — faster than most ag inputs. In high-value vegetable farming, where residue limits and sustainability standards are strict, adoption already tops 20 per cent. But scaling isn’t frictionless. Microbes are living products — they need cold chains, soil-specific tailoring, and precise timing. Farmers used to the consistency of synthetics can face uneven results if biofertilisers meet the wrong soil pH, moisture, or temperature. Policy Landscape: Aligning Incentives, Compliance, and Adoption Government policy is now the biggest accelerator — or brake — on biofertiliser adoption. In India, programmes like PKVY and NMSA are subsidising bio-inputs, funding farmer training, and running demo plots to de-risk adoption for both smallholders and commercial hubs. Fertiliser control rules and mandatory nutrient-use efficiency reporting are nudging growers toward balanced nutrition. States such as Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Tamil Nadu add extra firepower with cold-chain support, certification, and advisory services — lowering the operational barriers to microbial use. ” With over a century of microbial expertise, now renewed by the merger of Novozymes and Christian Hansen, we are working to redefine how crops are nourished, protected and optimized. We work not only to replace chemical inputs, but also harness nature’s own solutions for improved and more resilient cropping systems, all while allowing growers to unlock additional yields from every acre. Our philosophy has always been to integrate our global R&D expertise with local needs. We see this in action in different ways. At the business level, as a deeply innovation driven company, we invest roughly 10 per cent of our turnover in R&D, a very significant proportion of our revenue ” — Kate Brandon Sutton, Head of Plant Biosolutions Applied R&D, Novonesis Precision agriculture is the force multiplier. Sensor-guided fertigation, drones, and AI agronomy platforms sync microbial application with crop growth stages, maximising yield response. But, as Katie Whittiker of Novonesis points out, India’s smallholder-heavy farm structure makes scaling a challenge. Subscription-based digital agronomy and shared drone services are emerging as cost-efficient solutions to bridge the gap. “Protected cultivation adds another layer of opportunity, particularly around urban consumption centres where quality, consistency, and residue compliance are non-negotiable. Here, biofertilisers and biostimulants can be precisely delivered through drip systems, aligning with the closed-loop, resource-efficient nature of greenhouses and shade-net operations”, opined Kattie. “Companies like Novonesis, which collaborate with cooperatives and input distributors, play a crucial role in bridging research-led innovation with last-mile farmer adoption — ensuring that advanced microbial solutions reach growers with proper guidance and compliance support “, she added. “Our long term partnerships with platforms like Benchling underscores our investment in cutting-edge R&D innovation and development of next-gen Biosolutions for emerging agricultural segments. We aim to do this in precision farming and protected agriculture segments by – Expanding the suite of microbe-based inputs tailored for high-value crops; Collaborating with organizations and cooperatives to enable data-driven decision making at the level of the farm and the field, and Supporting growers with robust stewardship programs that facilitate seamless adoption, and help maximize returns on investment " — Katie Whittiker, Head of Plant BioYield Business Unit, Novonesis Globally, regulation is uneven but decisive. The EU’s Fertilising Products Regulation (FPR 2019/1009) sets strict efficacy, safety, and traceability standards — critical for exporters facing tight nitrate and residue limits. In the Middle East and Africa, policy levers are tied to EU compliance: Turkey, Morocco, and Egypt are rapidly adopting microbial fertilisers to secure greenhouse exports, while Sub-Saharan rules remain patchy — a hurdle and opportunity for new entrants. Denmark offers a glimpse of the future: subsidies tied to nitrogen cuts, public-private R&D under the IBIS platform, and carbon-credit monetisation create a strong business case for biofertiliser use. Policy isn’t just compliance — it rewires market economics. Where governments integrate incentives, adoption rises faster, microbial performance is more consistent, and ROI for suppliers and growers improves. Precision Vegetable Farming Meets Biological Inputs Digital agriculture and microbial biosolutions are redefining performance standards in high-value vegetable farming. In both CEA and irrigated fields, blanket fertiliser applications are giving way to real-time, demand-driven nutrition. IoT soil sensors, AI-powered fertigation, and multispectral imaging now work in sync to deliver the right nutrients at the right moment — maximising efficiency and yield. ” Extensive global and regional trials on vegetable crops — including tomatoes, chilies, and leafy greens — consistently reveal that India’s average yields remain well below global benchmarks. This productivity gap underscores a significant opportunity for bio-inputs such as biofertilisers and biostimulants to drive both yield gains and sustainability outcomes. When integrated with optimised agronomic practices, biological solutions have delivered yield improvements exceeding 10 per cent compared with conventional methods. In India, fertigation-based trials have recorded yield increases of up to 18 per cent in tomatoes and chilies, while greenhouse experiments in Vietnam have demonstrated markedly improved nutrient uptake and superior quality in leafy vegetables. Validated through close collaboration with growers and research institutions, these results confirm the reliability of microbial inputs under real-world conditions " — Shanmugam Sambanthan, Commercial Head, Agriculture ,South Asia, Middle East and Africa, Novonesis Globally, the impact is striking. Israeli drip-irrigation pioneers like Netafim and Rivulis inject biofertilisers directly into root zones, boosting microbial colonisation and cutting synthetic nitrogen use 20–30 per cent without hurting yields. In Europe, greenhouse tomato growers combine microbial consortia with precision nutrients to hit nitrate-residue targets while sustaining export-grade productivity. A 2023 Wageningen study found 12–15 per cent yield gains and up to 40 per cent nitrate reductions when biofertilisers were paired with variable-rate fertigation. India is steadily moving toward this model, though adoption is concentrated in progressive clusters. Agritech start-ups are embedding microbial inputs into AI-driven agronomy platforms, giving smallholders access to tools once reserved for corporates. Subscription services for drones, sensors, and fertigation-as-a-service are lowering financial barriers. Early pilots in Nashik report tomato yield gains of 10–18 per cent and synthetic nitrogen savings of up to 35 kg/ha through precision-linked biofertilisers. Protected cultivation is another growth lever. Greenhouses and shade-net houses near urban centres enable year-round, residue-free, premium vegetables with lower post-harvest losses. Novonesis’ biofertiliser and biostimulant range, tailored for drip-irrigated systems, has delivered firmer bell peppers and cucumbers, higher marketable yields, and 12–15 per cent better nutrient-use efficiency, boosting grower margins. The benefits are clear: lower synthetic fertiliser costs, improved water efficiency, and premiums for low-residue produce. But scaling is local — what works for a protected cucumber farm in Bengaluru may not suit an open-field tomato grower in Rajasthan. Precision tools plus biological inputs aren’t just incremental; they mark a structural shift toward climate-resilient, resource-efficient farming. For policymakers, they advance fertiliser-reduction and soil-health goals. For growers, they boost per-hectare profitability while cutting input volatility. For investors, they signal a decade of data-driven, biology-led, sustainability-aligned growth. Across the globe, this integration is gaining traction. Israeli drip-irrigation firms inject biofertilisers into root zones to optimise colonisation. European greenhouse tomato growers pair microbial consortia with precision nutrients to meet yield and nitrate-residue standards. In India, agritech start-ups are embedding microbial inputs into AI-powered agronomy platforms, bringing precision farming to smallholders. Benchmarking Regional Pathways: India in Focus Biofertiliser adoption is global but uneven, following three distinct paths: scale-driven South Asia, scarcity-driven Middle East and Africa, and regulation-led Denmark. Each reflects unique market forces, infrastructure readiness, and regulatory pressures, offering lessons on where the microbial transition will accelerate and how businesses can position themselves. India leads South Asia, accounting for over 60 per cent of the region’s $143 million biofertiliser market in 2024, with 11–12 per cent annual growth projected. Policy is a major driver: PKVY and NMSA subsidise bio-inputs, fund training and demo plots, and incentivise adoption among smallholders and commercial vegetable hubs. Fertiliser controls and nutrient-use reporting further nudge farmers toward microbial solutions, especially where synthetic fertiliser costs are volatile. Domestic production adds a cost edge. Local Rhizobium, phosphate-solubilising microbes, and mycorrhizal inoculants are often 20–30 per cent cheaper than imports, while improved quality control builds trust. Smallholder economics are increasingly compelling: ICAR trials show integrated biofertiliser regimes in tomatoes, brinjal, and capsicum can boost yields 10–18 per cent, improve nutrient-use efficiency up to 25 per cent, and cut synthetic nitrogen by 35 kg/ha under fertigation. These results are reshaping the investment calculus for farmers, distributors, and downstream buyers alike. Shanmugam Sambanthan, Commercial Head, Agriculture ,South Asia, Middle East and Africa, Novonesis, expects India’s B2B bio-input market to evolve rapidly, though the highly fragmented agriculture landscape . ” Currently, bio-inputs are still a small fraction of overall inputs used by farmers. The fragmentation across farmlands provides can be a significant challenges to the adoption of Bio-inputs, particularly when it comes to reaching farmers through the direct trade, and most importantly in providing meaningful services to farmers. Along similar lines, companies including startups in the bio-input space struggle to scale due to the high investment and resource requirements needed for wide market reach “, Sambanthan opined. Novonesis has carved a distinct niche in India’s bio-inputs market as a B2B innovator, focusing on cutting-edge R&D rather than direct-to-farmer sales. Its strength lies in developing advanced microbial and biostimulant solutions while partners handle market reach, distribution, and farmer engagement — a win–win that accelerates adoption without diluting focus on innovation, quality, or regulatory compliance. A collaboration with KRIBHCO illustrates this model. By combining Novonesis’ next-generation biosolutions with KRIBHCO’s distribution network and agricultural expertise, the partnership scales access, ensures reliable supply, and co-invests in farmer awareness programs and demonstration plots across diverse crops and agro-climatic zones. The results are tangible: Irrigated vegetable hubs like Nashik (Maharashtra) and Kolar (Karnataka) report 30–40 per cent integration for high-value crops such as tomato and capsicum. Adoption lags in rainfed eastern and central regions ( ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3238/japan-leads-way-in-kelp-carbon-credits-brian-takeda-explains-why-world-should-follow.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3238/japan-leads-way-in-kelp-carbon-credits-brian-takeda-explains-why-world-should-follow.html Fri, 05 Sep 2025 16:22:13 +0530 Brian Tsuyoshi Takeda, CEO & Co-Founder of Restorae, Founder, Urchinomics, Secretariat of International Affairs, Japan Blue Economy, Head of Reforestation, Kelp Forest Foundation is a global voice for ocean regeneration, championing kelp forests as vital yet overlooked climate allies. In this exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, he explains how kelp ecosystems deliver biodiversity, food security, coastal resilience, and carbon sequestration—quietly but critically shaping climate futures. As Secretariat of International Affairs at the Japan Blue Economy Association, Takeda highlights Japan’s pioneering role in integrating kelp forests into blue carbon credits and Paris Agreement reporting. He discusses the credibility of kelp-based sequestration, the challenges of MRV, and the high market value of Japan’s J-Blue Credits compared to conventional offsets. Beyond policy and markets, he emphasizes equitable benefit sharing for coastal communities, especially in the Global South, and the need for fair pricing mechanisms. Drawing on his Japanese heritage and global perspective, Takeda envisions kelp forests as central to a just and regenerative blue economy. Section I: Vision & Strategy Brian, you’re at the intersection of reforestation and regeneration—both on land and under water. What led you to champion kelp forests as a cornerstone of climate action in the marine sphere? Kelp forests are perhaps one of the most valuable ecosystems we have on our planet, yet are often overlooked because they thrive underwater, outside of our line of sight. When you quantify the incredible benefits kelp forests quietly deliver to us as “ecosystem services”, we find that they contribute immensely to biodiversity, coastal resilience, food security and climate change. Equally, when kelp forests suffer, they also suffer quietly, outside of our line of sight. So far, we have lost around half of all our kelp forests around the world, and most of us have no idea that this happened. When I learned how much kelp forests contribute, and how little attention it is getting, I felt the need to raise its profile and catalyze various solutions to help restore them. How do you see kelp reforestation fitting into Japan’s broader blue economy roadmap and international climate commitments like the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework or the Paris Agreement? Kelp forest restoration and farmed kelp production already contribute to the country´s efforts to decarbonize and improve biodiversity. Japan was the first in the world to recognize wild kelp forests as part of their blue carbon ecosystem, and now includes them as part of their inventory when reporting to the Paris Agreement. The Japan Blue Economy Association, a Ministry of Infrastructure, Land, Transportation and Tourism-approved independent research cooperative, is responsible for Japan´s voluntary blue carbon credits, where both wild kelp forests and farmed kelp are eligible for J-Blue Credits, a blue carbon credit that also incorporates other ecosystem services like biodiversity and community benefits. Unlike terrestrial forests, kelp forests store carbon in biomass for centuries. What makes them a credible, even necessary, part of the blue carbon conversation? In the Japanese context, kelp forest carbon sequestration is calculated based on the biomass and dissolved organic compounds that end up into the ocean´s deep and is sequestered there for centuries or millennia. Terrestrial forests on the other hand often include “above ground” biomass, or the trees themselves, which are prone to deforestation, fires, and other factors that I would say makes them less durable, and do not store it for centuries. Further, the Japanese approach to assessing carbon sequestration through kelps is based on an annual assessment of the biomass and a pragmatic estimation of how much of said biomass sinks into the deep sea. This means that, one needs to show that kelp is growing each year, to then approximate how much of that is deposited into the deep, in order to generate a credit. By making it an annual process, and only issuing credits when we know the kelp has in fact grown, and will inevitably get deposited into the deep sea, I like to believe it is much more robust and credible than current terrestrial MRV approaches. Section II: Science & Carbon Markets There’s growing excitement—but also skepticism—about ocean-based carbon sequestration. What scientific benchmarks or MRV (monitoring, reporting, verification) protocols are being established to validate kelp forests as legitimate carbon sinks? I am keeping a close eye on what the Republic of Korea will be doing in terms of seaweeds, kelps and their NDCs. What I find interesting about state-led initiatives, is that it effectively trumps all 3rd party approaches we have become dependent on, because it is ultimately the state that reports to the Paris and Kunming-Montreal Agreement. So, the moment Japan´s state-led approach is joined by Korea, China and other countries in a similar state-centric way, we will surely see a burst of new interest from around the world. When it is just one country, it is an exception. When it is two, we can draw a line and start thinking about trajectory. When countries like China join the mix, we start to see a meaningful pattern develop. The question then is, what are other kelp-endowed countries like the UK, Norway, Canada, US, Chile, Argentina, Australia and New Zealand going to do? They too have robust and valuable kelp forests that contribute not just to carbon sequestration, but a myriad of other co-benefits. Perhaps the developments in the East will trigger Western governments to take a more active role in their kelp forests. Are current voluntary carbon markets structurally ready to accommodate kelp-based credits, or are we still in the proof-of-concept stage? What regulatory bottlenecks or frameworks are you navigating? Voluntary carbon markets in Japan are ready, as the J-Blue Credits generated from kelp restoration has been in existence for many years now, and they are transacting at significantly higher prices than the rest of the world. Average prices of J-Blue Credits are well over $ 400/t, which is more than 10x traditional voluntary carbon credits sold around the world. One of the main reasons why I joined the Japan Blue Economy Association as their Secretariat of International Affairs, was because I realized all these precedent-setting events were not being properly shared and communicated with the rest of the world. The language and culture barrier are likely the biggest hurdles for Japan´s best practices, learnings and experiences from spreading to other kelp-endowed countries, and accelerating their respective development in the space. Can you share insights into ongoing pilot projects, especially those demonstrating the sequestration potential, co-benefits (like biodiversity and fisheries recovery), and economic returns of kelp reforestation ? Here are some tangible examples of projects, both pilot and scaling projects, that are already demonstrating sequestration and co-benefits. In Japan, a suite of progressive pilot and scaling projects is providing robust evidence that kelp reforestation delivers credible carbon sequestration alongside tangible ecological and socio-economic benefits. In Hirono Town (Iwate Prefecture), Sumitomo Corporation and partners restored seaweed beds within the historic Zoshokuko tidal channels—earning the largest issuance yet of J-Blue Credits (3,106.5 t-CO₂), while channeling proceeds into climate action through a local fisheries council. Meanwhile, Urchinomics pioneered a circular restoration model in Kunisaki and Nagato by paying divers to remove overgrazing sea urchins, ranching them into premium seafood, and thereby enabling kelp forest recovery. Their efforts secured the world’s first voluntary blue carbon credits for kelp restoration, with scientifically conservative yet verifiable estimates (approximately 1.5 t-CO₂ per hectare, priced at JPY 78,063/t in 2022). At Mashike in Hokkaido, University of Tokyo researchers conducted a five-year field study using iron fertilization—applying steelmaking slag combined with compost along the shoreline—to stimulate biomass growth in Saccharina japonica, with fertilized plots demonstrating significantly greater seaweed coverage than control sites. Complementing these, municipal initiatives—such as eelgrass and seaweed restoration in Osaka’s Hannan City and Oita Prefecture—have produced J-Blue Credit-certified carbon offsets while reinvesting revenues in community education, aquatic habitat regeneration, and local livelihoods. Together, these diverse projects underline a powerful narrative: kelp forests are not only viable as durable blue carbon sinks but also act as engines for biodiversity recovery, fisheries revival, and coastal economic resilience. Section III: Geopolitics & Ocean Equity Kelp thrives in temperate oceans across East Asia, the Americas, and beyond. Do you see a risk of blue carbon becoming a resource race, especially as high-integrity credits become scarce? That is an interesting question. Firstly, I think your point of geography is quite important. Kelp is quite unique because unlike mangroves and corals, they tend to grow in the countries where emissions and biodiversity loss are highest. This means that high emitting countries can begin reversing this trend within their own Exclusive Economic Zone, as kelps grow 100 per cent within it. So in that sense, I can see how restoring kelp forests can quickly become a “low hanging fruit” for those countries that have them, and can quickly scale up restoration efforts. Secondly, as for your comment about a resource race, I do think that due to the scarcity of high-integrity credits, there will be a massive supply shortage, but that would apply for all types, not just ocean-based ones. However, for those ocean-faring companies that would prefer to inset within their marine supply chain, versus offsetting on terrestrial initiatives, I think the supply would be even more limited, as supply is already incredibly constrained today. This is where I believe well-structured frameworks and markets will play their role. As demand continues to grow for marine solutions, the lack of supply will drive a new cohort of new entrants that will develop new ways to restore marine ecosystems. Markets like Japan that have mechanisms like J-Blue Credits will see more innovative solutions developing, simply because they have a state-approved, predictable framework to work within. This can then lead to exciting collaborations between major corporates, funders on one side, and innovative start-ups and community led initiatives on the other, like we already see today. Governments that do not provide such a framework will make it riskier for corporates and investors to contribute, limiting the market pressures to spur on exciting, and much needed innovation. How can we ensure that coastal communities, particularly in the Global South, are not just carbon custodians but equitable beneficiaries in emerging kelp carbon markets? This is one of the most important points I would like to highlight in this interview. After having met many mangrove restoration practitioners from the Global South and Small Island Developing States and learning about their challenges, I am firmly convinced that equitable benefit sharing must be the cornerstone of future kelp carbon markets. In Japan, where the communities themselves often own and operate the restoration projects, they retain most of the $ 400/t (average) credit value upon selling it to a mission-aligned corporates. However, I have since learned that, even some of the best mangrove projects in Africa are only getting $ 20-30 $/t, of which the initial funders, market makers and brokers, certifying bodies all take their cut, leaving at most, 30 per cent of the credit value for the communities. I would thus like to take this opportunity to address the elephant in the room. Pricing. Europe´s carbon taxes per ton of CO2e released is between 50 to 120 EUR, with the Norwegian government aiming to set it to EUR 170 (2000NOK/ton CO2e) by 2030. The IMO´s penalty fee for exceeding allocated emissions is $ 380/t. Japan´s J-Blue Credits are being traded at an average of over $ 400/t. The Global North is clearly in triple digit territory when it comes to “costing” the release of CO2. However, high-integrity, high-value, co-benefits generating, community-led blue carbon projects in the Global South only achieve $ 30/ton for the same 1t of CO2e sequestered, and the communities that make it all happen only get $ 9/ton of this. Value seems to be disproportionately captured by the emitters and buyers in the North by depressing the purchase prices of the credits generated in the South. I believe there should be a price correcting mechanism, like the indexing of the carbon credit prices to the carbon taxes faced by the buyers in the Global North. By indexing, and ensuring that the indexed premium goes to the communities, we narrow the gap by raising prices closer to the buyer´s cost of releasing CO2, while ensuring that communities properly and equitably benefit. Section IV: Innovation, Investment, and the Future Is there scope to integrate kelp reforestation with other ocean-based climate strategies—such as regenerative aquaculture, artificial reefs, or marine permaculture—for compounded climate and livelihood gains? Absolutely. It may also prove to be one of the fastest, most scalable and cost effective ways to improve marine biodiversity, coastal resilience and carbon sequestration. This is simply because kelps are incredibly resilient and can opportunistically recolonize very fast if we give them the right conditions to do so. And we can do this two ways. We can a) reduce the pressures preventing kelps from recovering and/or b) help kelp forests recover faster using artificial reefs, marine permaculture etc. I think the answer will likely be a combination of everything will be most effective, rather than one or the other. Section V: Personal & Philosophical You’ve spoken about environmental responsibility rooted in cultural and intergenerational wisdom. How does your heritage influence your vision for restoring underwater ecosystems? Perhaps it is the Japanese, collectivist, Buddhist-Shinto part of me, but I do believe our stakeholders are not just those that are present with us today, but also those of our past and future, and beyond the narrow definition of humanity. As temporary inhabitants of this planet, I feel it is our duty to find greater balance between our stakeholders (past, present and future, as well as human and non-human), rather than tip it even more in favor of humanity, today. What gives you hope that kelp forests—often invisible and undervalued—can finally capture the world’s attention as vital climate allies? I think kelp forests will truly gain the attention it deserves when more people understand the incredible power kelps and seaweeds hold, and how kelp forests are interconnected with life in the ocean. And we are seeing a growing awareness shift amongst the general population in some countries. In Norway for example, kelp forests are finally being talked about in the parliament, and how government, private industry and NGOs are now working together to create a holistic plan for kelp forest restoration. We still have a long way to go though, so I will continue to spread the word however I can so that we can build even more momentum to conserve and restore these precious ecosystems we have along our coasts. ---- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3232/autour-du-cacao-inside-mboukems-mission-to-rewire-cocoas-future.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3232/autour-du-cacao-inside-mboukems-mission-to-rewire-cocoas-future.html Wed, 03 Sep 2025 14:21:14 +0530 In an exclusive interview with Agrospectrum, Willy Gabriel Mboukem, President of La Green Factory, outlined how Africa can finally rewrite its role in the $130-billion cocoa economy. Speaking through the lens of Autour du Cacao, his flagship project, Mboukem stressed that the real breakthrough lies not only in local processing but in valorizing by-products—transforming husks, mucilage, and pulp into new industries from cosmetics to bioplastics. He argued that Europe’s new deforestation rules, while challenging, could be a springboard for African producers to lead on traceability and sustainability if backed with the right support. Looking ahead to 2035, he envisions a cocoa sector driven by prosperous farmers, strong cooperatives, and globally recognized African brands. But he warned that without investment, governance reform, and youth engagement, Africa risks remaining a raw bean supplier in a market it should be shaping. The Value Paradox Africa produces most of the world’s cocoa but captures little of the value. Why has this paradox endured, and what levers could finally shift value addition closer to origin? The fact that Africa produces the vast majority of the world’s cocoa while capturing only a tiny fraction of its value is a persistent paradox, deeply rooted in colonial history and global economic structures. Several factors contribute to this. Historically, producing countries have been confined to the role of suppliers of raw beans, with little or no local processing. The value-added stages—roasting, grinding, chocolate manufacturing, and marketing—are predominantly captured by companies in consuming countries. Insufficient investment in infrastructure (roads, energy, logistics) and limited industrial capacity further hinder the development of a competitive local processing industry. The cost of local processing can sometimes exceed that of exporting raw beans and importing finished products. However, Côte d’Ivoire is making tremendous progress on this front by canceling exportation of raw beans from April to October. This effort is designed to allocate beans to processors, with the goal of transforming 50 per cent of production by 2050. African producers also often face difficult access to international markets for processed goods and lack information on consumption trends, quality requirements and export prices, making them dependent on intermediary buyers. In addition, sanitary, phytosanitary, and quality standards imposed by importing markets can be difficult for small producers and emerging processors to meet, requiring costly investments and training. A crucial but often overlooked factor is the low valuation of by-products. The industry focuses almost exclusively on the cocoa bean for chocolate production. However, the cocoa pod, mucilage, husk, and other parts of the fruit hold immense economic and nutritional potential, which often remains untapped. The failure to valorize these by-products represents a significant economic loss and waste of resources. How to Change the Game? The most powerful lever to shift value addition to the origin lies in diversification and valorization of cocoa by-products. It is imperative to move beyond the binary thinking of "cocoa = chocolate and beans." The true wealth of cocoa does not lie solely in the bean. Mucilage can be transformed into juice, vinegar, or alcohol; the husk into biochar, fertilizer, bioplastics, or animal feed ingredients. The pulp can be used for refreshing beverages or jams. These transformations, often less capital-intensive than large-scale chocolate production, can be carried out locally, creating jobs, generating additional income for farmers, and reducing waste. Our initiatives are dedicated precisely to highlighting these innovations and the actors who are exploring new valorization pathways. We interview entrepreneurs, researchers, and farmers who are transforming cocoa beyond the bean, demonstrating the economic and environmental potential of these by-products. It is by investing in research and development of these alternative value chains, training local populations in transformation techniques, and facilitating market access for these new products that Africa can finally capture a fairer share of its cocoa’s value. Europe’s New Rules The EU Deforestation Regulation is poised to redefine cocoa trade. Do you see it primarily as a compliance burden for African farmers or as a chance to accelerate traceability and sustainability? The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) marks a turning point for the cocoa trade. I view it not as a compliance burden but as a rare opportunity to accelerate traceability and sustainability in the cocoa supply chain—so long as it comes with adequate support for producers. A burden or an opportunity? For African farmers, especially smallholders, the regulation will not be easy. Parcel geolocation, proof of non-deforestation, and due diligence bring new layers of complexity and cost. Without technical and financial backing, many could be shut out of the European market, with serious socio-economic consequences. Yet the very stringency of the EUDR forces a transformation the industry has long postponed. Traceability, for decades little more than an aspiration, is now non-negotiable. By requiring precise data on origin, the regulation enables the identification of deforestation-risk areas, ensures cocoa comes from legal and sustainable sources, and strengthens the fight against child labor and other abuses. Compliance will also accelerate the adoption of sustainable practices. Farmers will need to move toward methods that do not drive deforestation, pushing agroforestry, forest restoration, and more responsible land management from theory to practice. The benefits extend beyond the farm. Demonstrating compliance with European standards could help African cocoa shed its reputation as a commodity plagued by sustainability concerns. Producers who meet the bar stand to gain buyer confidence and access to premium markets. And with regulatory clarity, investment in sustainable and traceable supply chains becomes more attractive, offering committed farmers a clearer pathway to long-term resilience. The role of support For this opportunity to outweigh the risks, substantial support is essential. Farmers will need technical assistance in GPS mapping, data management, and sustainable agronomic practices. They will require financial support—credit for equipment, certification, and transition costs. Local institutions must be strengthened so they can guide producers through compliance. And above all, there must be open dialogue between the EU, producing countries, and supply chain actors to ensure the regulation is implemented fairly and effectively. If these conditions are met, the EUDR could do more than reshape trade. It could set the stage for a cocoa industry that is transparent, sustainable, and more equitable—one in which Africa positions itself not at the margins but at the forefront of responsible production. Processing Ambitions Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana have set targets to process more of their cocoa locally. In practical terms, what stands in the way of Africa scaling beyond semi-processing into globally competitive chocolate? The ambitions of Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana to process more of their cocoa locally are both commendable and necessary if Africa is to capture a greater share of value. Yet moving beyond semi-processing into globally competitive chocolate production faces significant hurdles, many of which are deeply structural. The first obstacle lies in the cost of energy and inputs. Chocolate manufacturing is energy-intensive, and high or unstable electricity prices in many African countries drive up production costs. Beyond energy, essential inputs such as sugar, powdered milk, and food-grade packaging often have to be imported, adding both expense and logistical complexity. Technology and expertise present another barrier. Producing high-quality chocolate requires advanced machinery and refined technical skills—whether mastering flavor profiling, conching, or tempering. Such expertise is not yet widely available locally, and access to cutting-edge equipment and training remains limited. Even when production is possible, stringent quality and food safety standards add another layer of difficulty. Competing globally demands rigorous quality control systems and internationally recognized certifications, both of which are costly and complicated to implement. Then comes the challenge of marketing and distribution. The global chocolate market is dominated by entrenched multinationals with vast budgets and global retail networks. African brands struggle to gain visibility, build recognition, and secure access to supermarket shelves or specialty stores abroad. Financing is also a persistent bottleneck: large-scale chocolate processing requires heavy upfront investment, but African entrepreneurs often face limited access to affordable, long-term credit. Finally, there is the question of consumer perception. For decades, chocolate has been synonymous with Europe or North America, and the idea that African chocolate is somehow of lower quality—however unfounded—still lingers. Overcoming this bias requires sustained branding, storytelling, and consumer education to promote the quality and authenticity of African-origin chocolate. By-Product Valorization as a Bridge Given these realities, it may be more pragmatic not to focus exclusively on producing finished chocolate but to diversify value-addition strategies. Valorizing cocoa by-products offers a promising bridge. The mucilage can be transformed into juice or vinegar, non-deodorized cocoa butter can feed cosmetics, and husks can be turned into bioplastics or fertilizers. These pathways are far less capital- and technology-intensive than chocolate manufacturing, yet they can generate substantial revenues. Crucially, they can be pursued locally, creating jobs, developing skills, and enabling African businesses to gain experience with transformation processes, quality standards, and international market dynamics. Over time, these alternative value chains can serve as stepping stones, allowing cocoa-producing countries to build expertise, accumulate capital, and gradually develop their own strong brands. Our podcast “Autour du Cacao” highlights precisely such initiatives, showcasing entrepreneurs who are reimagining cocoa beyond the bean. Their work demonstrates that the future of Africa’s cocoa sector need not be a binary choice between exporting raw beans and competing head-on with chocolate giants. By fully valorizing the fruit in all its forms, Africa can carve a distinctive, resilient, and ultimately more profitable place in the global cocoa economy. Farmer Economics Cocoa farmers remain trapped in poverty despite feeding a $130+ billion chocolate industry. Beyond pricing mechanisms like the Living Income Differential, what structural solutions could transform farmer livelihoods? That cocoa farmers remain trapped in poverty while fueling a chocolate industry worth over $130 billion is a glaring injustice. Mechanisms like the Living Income Differential (LID) are steps in the right direction, but they remain stopgap measures. To truly transform farmer livelihoods, structural solutions must target the root causes of poverty. The first imperative is diversification. Dependence on cocoa alone leaves farmers at the mercy of volatile markets and climate shocks. Integrating food crops, alternative cash crops, or even livestock into farming systems can stabilize incomes and enhance household food security. Agroforestry is particularly promising, allowing cocoa to be cultivated under the shade of fruit and forest trees that generate additional income streams while improving ecological resilience. Equally critical is the valorization of cocoa by-products. The fruit is more than just the bean: mucilage, husk, and pulp all carry economic potential. Small-scale transformation into juices, vinegar, biochar, or animal feed can unlock new revenue sources that were previously wasted. But realizing this potential requires targeted training in processing techniques and the creation of viable market linkages for these new products. Finance is another missing piece. Too often, farmers remain excluded from formal financial systems, with little access to credit, insurance, or savings tools. Expanding access to tailored microfinance, climate-risk insurance, and savings schemes would empower farmers to invest in productivity improvements, weather lean seasons, and withstand unexpected shocks. Collective organization also matters. Strong cooperatives and producer associations can shift the balance of power in farmers’ favor. By pooling resources, they can negotiate better input prices, organize collective marketing, and share services such as training or equipment. This reduces dependence on intermediaries and ensures that more value remains in farmer hands. Training and technology transfer are essential complements. Practical instruction in good agricultural practices, post-harvest handling, and quality improvement can directly raise yields and incomes. At the same time, capacity building in by-product processing equips farmers to diversify income streams in more innovative ways. Finally, rural infrastructure must not be overlooked. Roads, energy, and water systems may seem distant from farm-level economics, but they are in fact central. Better infrastructure reduces transport and transaction costs, improves access to inputs and markets, and makes it easier for farmers to connect with financial and extension services. In short, lifting cocoa farmers out of poverty requires moving beyond short-term pricing fixes. Only by diversifying farm economies, valorizing the full potential of cocoa, expanding financial inclusion, strengthening collective power, and investing in rural infrastructure can the industry close the gap between a multibillion-dollar chocolate market and the smallholders who sustain it. Consumer Shifts in Europe How are European trends—demand for dark chocolate, sugar reduction, ethical sourcing—reshaping the cocoa value chain, and where can African producers plug into these shifts? Consumer trends in Europe—particularly the appetite for dark chocolate, the push for sugar reduction, and the insistence on ethical sourcing—are not passing fads. They are rewiring the cocoa value chain and, crucially, creating new entry points for African producers willing to adapt. The growing demand for dark chocolate is the clearest signal. By emphasizing the intrinsic quality of cocoa and its complex flavor profiles rather than sugar or additives, European consumers are rewarding producers who can deliver beans with distinctive aromas and terroir. For African farmers, this makes investment in fermentation and drying techniques far more than a technical upgrade—it is a passport to direct partnerships with artisan chocolatiers and niche brands that prize origin-specific identity. Sugar reduction amplifies this trend. As consumers gravitate toward richer flavors less masked by sweetness, the aromatic depth of cocoa comes into sharper focus. African beans, with their varied profiles, are well positioned to serve as the backbone of low-sugar chocolates that still feel indulgent. This shift also opens the door to innovation in cocoa-based products that aren’t necessarily confections at all—pure cocoa beverages, extracts, and functional ingredients that lean on authenticity rather than added sugar. The most powerful driver, however, is ethical and sustainable sourcing. European buyers are scrutinizing the origins of cocoa like never before, linking their choices to farmer livelihoods, environmental impact, and traceability. With the EU Deforestation Regulation now transforming ethical sourcing from a consumer preference into a legal requirement, the message is unambiguous: cocoa that cannot prove it is deforestation-free and responsibly grown will struggle to enter the European market. For African producers, this presents both a challenge and an unprecedented opportunity to differentiate through certifications, agroforestry practices, and fair labor commitments. Seizing this moment requires a multi-pronged strategy. Producers must first shift from bulk cocoa to specialty-grade beans, focusing on quality and differentiation. Building robust traceability systems—complete with parcel geolocation and transparent documentation of farming practices—will be non-negotiable to satisfy both regulators and consumers. Beyond the bean, there lies another frontier: valorization of by-products. Europe’s interest in natural, functional, and sustainable ingredients is growing, and cocoa mucilage, husk, and pulp can be transformed into beverages, cosmetics, and nutraceuticals that speak directly to sugar-conscious, health-oriented consumers. Cocoa juice, rich in antioxidants, is already a candidate for positioning as a healthy, natural drink aligned with Europe’s low-sugar ethos. But meeting these trends is not just about production; it is about narrative. European consumers increasingly want to know the story behind their chocolate—its terroir, its communities, its sustainable practices. Finally, success will require forging strategic partnerships. By aligning with European companies committed to sustainability and innovation, African producers can not only gain access to markets but also benefit from technology transfer, co-branding opportunities, and new product development. In doing so, they cease to be mere suppliers of raw material and instead emerge as co-creators of the future of chocolate. In short, Europe’s shifting consumer landscape is more than a compliance challenge. It is a chance for Africa to rewrite its role in the cocoa economy—by doubling down on quality, embedding traceability, valorizing every part of the fruit, and telling its story with conviction. Africa–Europe Power Balance Historically, Europe has set the rules and Africa has supplied the beans. Do you see the relationship evolving toward a more balanced partnership, or will structural dependency persist? Historically, the relationship between Africa and Europe in the cocoa industry has been one of stark imbalance: Europe set the rules while Africa supplied the beans. Today, however, there are signs of this dynamic shifting toward a more balanced partnership—even if the risk of structural dependence remains unless bolder reforms take root. Signs of Evolution The first indicator of change lies in Africa’s growing ambition to process more cocoa locally. Every ton transformed into paste, butter, or powder within producing countries represents value captured at origin rather than ceded to European processors. While competing with global chocolate giants remains a long-term challenge, the rise of African chocolatiers and the steady growth of domestic grinding capacity signal a meaningful shift. Equally transformative is the valorization of by-products. By extracting value from cocoa mucilage, husk, and pulp, African innovators are building entirely new economic sectors that do not directly compete with Europe’s chocolate industry. Products such as cocoa juice, biochar, and cosmetics diversify income streams and reposition Africa not as a raw material supplier but as a source of innovation. Producer organizations and institutions are also becoming more assertive. Stronger cooperatives, regional blocs such as ECOWAS, and proactive government policies are giving farmers a greater collective voice. At the same time, European consumer demand for ethical, sustainable, and traceable cocoa is granting African producers new leverage. Those who meet these standards can forge more direct, equitable partnerships with buyers and negotiate improved terms. Finally, knowledge and technology transfer partnerships are enabling African actors to climb further up the value chain, from farming to processing to marketing. Risks of Persistent Dependence Yet these advances could stall if structural barriers are not dismantled. Without large-scale investment in infrastructure, energy access, and training, local processing ambitions risk falling short. International regulations, such as the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), may also entrench inequality if imposed as compliance burdens without financial or technical support. Unless producing countries coordinate their approaches to European buyers, fragmented strategies will continue to weaken bargaining power. Outlook In short, the balance is shifting but not guaranteed. Africa’s determination to capture more value, combined with European consumers’ ethical expectations, is laying the groundwork for a new kind of partnership. To consolidate this progress, however, investment, supportive policy frameworks, and cross-border collaboration remain essential. The future of cocoa depends on whether the industry can finally transcend its colonial inheritance and build a relationship defined by shared value rather than structural dependency. Role of Policy and Institutions How effective are current interventions by African governments, regional blocs, and industry alliances in shifting bargaining power? What policy gaps still hold Africa back? The interventions of African governments, regional blocs, and industry alliances are increasingly important in rebalancing negotiating power in the cocoa sector. Yet their effectiveness is uneven, and persistent policy gaps continue to limit Africa’s ability to fully capture value. Effectiveness of Current Interventions National governments have made strides by encouraging local processing through tax incentives and industrial free zones, improving cocoa quality through certification programs and research centers, and supporting farmers with subsidies or guaranteed prices. Regulatory bodies such as Côte d’Ivoire’s Coffee-Cocoa Council and the Ghana Cocoa Board have brought greater organization and a measure of protection to farmers. Regional blocs such as ECOWAS and ECCAS hold potential to integrate regional cocoa markets, harmonize policies, and strengthen Africa’s collective bargaining power with international buyers. Their industrialization and diversification initiatives mark steps in that direction, though they remain works in progress. Industry alliances, notably the Cocoa & Forests Initiative (CFI), have mobilized resources to address deforestation, child labor, and traceability. These programs help align African producers with evolving European sustainability requirements and build credibility in global markets. Persistent Policy Gaps Despite these advances, several gaps blunt the impact of interventions. A lack of coordination—between ministries and among producing countries—often dilutes the effectiveness of national and regional policies. The broader business environment also poses challenges: corruption, bureaucracy, and political instability discourage both local entrepreneurship and foreign investment. Access to long-term, affordable finance remains another weak link. Without credit, insurance, and investment capital, smallholder cooperatives and SMEs struggle to scale processing, adopt innovation, or valorize by-products. Research and development is underfunded, with too few centers of excellence or public–private partnerships driving new varieties, farming practices, or product innovation. Infrastructure deficits—from unreliable energy and poor roads to limited storage—continue to raise costs and erode competitiveness. Finally, policy frameworks rarely extend to by-product valorization. The absence of clear standards and incentives has slowed the commercialization of products like cocoa juice, biochar, or husk-based materials that could open entirely new markets. The Way Forward For Africa to move beyond bean dependency, policies must become more integrated, coordinated, and backed by substantial investment. Governments need to create an environment conducive to entrepreneurship, innovation, and sustainable value capture across the entire chain—not just at the farm gate. Closing these gaps is the only way to convert current efforts into real bargaining power and position Africa as an equal partner in the global cocoa economy. The Next Decade By 2035, what does a successful African cocoa economy look like in your view? And conversely, what risks could derail progress if current dynamics don’t change? By 2035, a successful African cocoa economy would look radically different from today’s. The continent would no longer be confined to exporting raw beans but would command a diversified, integrated value chain. A significant share of cocoa would be processed locally—not only into paste, butter, and powder, but also into high-quality chocolates sold under internationally recognized African brands. Just as importantly, by-products once discarded would fuel thriving new industries. Companies would be producing cocoa juice, vinegar, cosmetics, bioplastics, organic fertilizers, and even pharmaceutical ingredients, creating new revenue streams and jobs. Farmers themselves would be prosperous and autonomous. Living incomes would be secured through fairer bean prices, diversified earnings from agroforestry and by-product valorization, and far better access to finance and services. Farmers would operate as skilled entrepreneurs, organized into powerful cooperatives that negotiate directly with buyers. Agriculture would also be sustainable by default. Regenerative practices and agroforestry would enhance soils, protect biodiversity, and build climate resilience, while deforestation linked to cocoa would be eliminated through traceable, forest-positive production systems. African leadership would be more visible and more coherent. Governments and regional blocs would back industrialization with consistent policies, R&D investments, and market-access strategies. On the global stage, Africa would speak with one voice, asserting the interests of its producers and processors. Perhaps most importantly, a new generation would see agriculture as a sector of opportunity, not last resort. Through innovation, entrepreneurship, and social recognition, farming would attract youth, with initiatives such as Kids Farming inspiring children to view sustainable agriculture as both purposeful and aspirational. Risks of Derailment But this vision is far from guaranteed. If investments in local processing and by-product valorization stall, Africa could remain stuck as a raw bean supplier, vulnerable to price swings. Failure to support smallholders in complying with new rules like the EUDR could shut farmers out of European markets, deepening poverty and instability. Climate change poses another existential risk: without widespread adoption of resilient farming systems, yields could collapse under droughts, floods, or disease. Equally worrying is the financing gap. Without affordable, long-term investment in infrastructure, innovation, and SMEs, ambitions may wither on paper. The Imperative The next decade will be decisive. Turning Africa’s cocoa economy into a diversified, sustainable, and youth-driven powerhouse requires collective, coordinated action across governments, industry, and civil society. Innovation, diversification, and empowerment of local actors must move from rhetoric to reality. The future of cocoa is in Africa—but only if Africa seizes it on its own terms. ---- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3221/transforming-post-harvest-protection-clearleafs-gotablanca-post-redefines-future-of-zero-residue-crop-innovation.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3221/transforming-post-harvest-protection-clearleafs-gotablanca-post-redefines-future-of-zero-residue-crop-innovation.html Mon, 01 Sep 2025 16:35:13 +0530 In an exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Lawrence Pratt, President of ClearLeaf (Costa Rica), unveils how the company’s GotaBlanca Post platform is revolutionizing post-harvest crop protection with zero-detectable residues. Using a proprietary copolymer matrix that embeds elemental silver, the technology destroys pathogens through multiple mechanisms while keeping silver levels at natural background thresholds. Pratt highlights that in pineapples and bananas—two of the world’s largest tropical export crops—the product delivers fungicide-level efficacy without worker safety risks or environmental trade-offs. With EU bans tightening and consumers demanding residue-free produce, he sees the non-toxic post-harvest protection market growing exponentially over the next five years. Regulatory trials have already shown ClearLeaf’s formulations beat the strictest MRL limits, opening premium export markets to producers. Looking ahead, Pratt envisions GotaBlanca Post as a game-changer for global fresh produce trade, cutting waste, extending shelf life, and reshaping economics across long-distance supply chains. Transformative Innovation GotaBlanca Post extends a field-proven crop protection platform into post-harvest applications. Can you explain the science behind its ability to deliver uncompromised pathogen control while leaving zero detectable residues? The science lies in our innovative copolymer matrix design. GotaBlanca Post uses elemental silver embedded within a proprietary surface copolymer system that creates a protective microfilm on produce. The elemental silver of our formulation kills pathogens through multiple simultaneous mechanisms – shattering cell walls, disrupting nutrient uptake, damaging DNA, and causing oxidative stress. This multi-point mode of action is incredibly effective yet uses truly tiny amounts of silver. Our trials with Eurofins laboratory consistently show residues below detectable limits because the silver remains at naturally occurring background levels. The copolymer matrix keeps the active ingredient exactly where it needs to be – on the surface fighting pathogens – without interfering with natural processes or entering the food matrix. In comparison to conventional synthetic fungicides, how does GotaBlanca Post redefine the balance between efficacy, safety, and environmental stewardship? We’ve essentially solved the traditional trade-off between effectiveness and safety. In our trials, GotaBlanca Post matched or exceeded the performance of conventional fungicides like fludioxonil against major pathogens, with 95 per cent of treated pineapples showing no mold after 21 days of simulated transoceanic transit. But here’s what’s revolutionary – workers can handle treated produce without protective equipment, there’s zero environmental impact, and the product supports regenerative agriculture by promoting soil microbiome balance. This is a great complement to our field-use products which, unlike synthetics that require the plant to expend energy processing toxic chemicals, protects without the plant even “knowing” it’s there, eliminating metabolic stress entirely. Market Strategy and Global Positioning Among tropical fruits like bananas, pineapples, and papayas, which categories are expected to drive early adoption, and what commercial factors influence this trajectory? Pineapples and bananas are our core opportunity markets, and for compelling commercial reasons. Pineapples face particularly severe pathogen pressure during the 21+ day transoceanic journeys, and Costa Rica exports more than 2 million tonnes of pineapples annually – mostly to Europe and North America where residue standards are strictest. We’re already shipping one container weekly with a major Costa Rican exporter, and we’re in discussions with Southeast Asian exporters moving 10,000 to 40,000 containers annually. Bananas follow close behind due to their massive export volumes and susceptibility to anthracnose. The commercial drivers are clear: longer shelf life, access to premium markets demanding residue-free produce, and elimination of worker safety concerns that plague conventional treatments. Looking ahead, how do you anticipate the global market for non-toxic, post-harvest crop protection evolving over the next five years, and what role will ClearLeaf play in shaping this transformation? We’re witnessing a perfect storm driving this transformation. The EU continues banning conventional fungicides – mancozeb being the latest – while consumer demand for residue-free produce accelerates. Major retailers are already recommending our technology to their suppliers based on trial results. We expect the non-toxic post-harvest market to grow exponentially as exporters realize they can’t afford the regulatory and market access risks of conventional treatments. ClearLeaf is positioned to lead this shift because we’re one of the only companies offering broad-spectrum, non-toxic efficacy that actually works at scale. Our technology platform can be deployed across dozens of crops and geographies – something that biological solutions simply can’t match due to their pathogen-specific limitations. Sustainability, Regulation, and Consumer Confidence Could you share insights from the regulatory registration process in Costa Rica, and your roadmap for securing approvals in major export markets globally? Costa Rica proved our regulatory pathway works. We successfully obtained registration for our pre harvest (in-field) formulation in 2021, followed by Nicaragua, Honduras, and Panama. The key insight is that elemental silver has a massive safety database – it’s one of the most studied substances on earth. For post-harvest applications, the critical hurdle is meeting Maximum Residue Level requirements in export destinations. Since there’s no specific MRL for silver, the default limit of 0.01 mg/kg applies, which we consistently beat by wide margins. Our trials with European CROs using ISO standard protocols show residues below detectable limits. We’re now targeting Australia, Colombia, Vietnam, and expanding into major export markets where our zero-residue profile eliminates traditional regulatory barriers. How does a zero-residue profile influence brand differentiation, consumer trust, and compliance in an increasingly trade-sensitive and health-conscious marketplace? Zero residues are increasingly non-negotiable for premium markets. Major retailers are demanding residue-free produce, and consumers increasingly view any detectable residues as unacceptable. Our technology transforms compliance from a cost center into a competitive advantage. Exporters using GotaBlanca Post can access the highest-value market segments, command premium prices, and never worry about shipments being rejected at borders due to residue violations. We’re seeing this play out with our commercial partners who report that zero-residue certification opens doors that were previously closed to conventional treatments. It’s not just about meeting standards anymore – it’s about exceeding them so dramatically that it becomes a marketing asset. Strategic Vision and Future Horizons Are there upcoming innovations within the GotaBlanca platform—such as next-generation formulations, delivery systems, or integration with precision agriculture—that could redefine post-harvest protection? Absolutely. We’re developing enhanced formulations optimized for specific transit conditions and crop requirements. The beauty of our platform is its modularity – we can adjust the copolymer matrix and delivery mechanisms while maintaining the core silver technology. The most exciting development is our work on extending the platform to new application methods, including integration with existing packing line equipment to make adoption seamless for large-scale operations. From a global supply chain perspective, how do you envision GotaBlanca Post reshaping economics, quality preservation, and food safety across long-duration shipping and export cycles? This technology fundamentally changes the economics of global fresh produce trade. Currently, exporters lose 20-40 per cent of their product to post-harvest losses, which forces them to overproduce and accept lower prices. GotaBlanca Post enables exporters to ship with confidence, reduce insurance costs, access longer-distance markets, and capture premium pricing for residue-free produce. We’re essentially expanding the geographic reach of fresh produce exports by extending viable shipping windows while ensuring products arrive in premium condition. This creates cascading benefits throughout the supply chain – reduced food waste, more efficient global distribution, and democratized access to premium export markets for producers who previously couldn’t meet strict residue requirements. — Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3207/groundwater-is-new-gold-noa-amsalem-on-israels-blueprint-for-water-security.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3207/groundwater-is-new-gold-noa-amsalem-on-israels-blueprint-for-water-security.html Fri, 22 Aug 2025 16:51:20 +0530 Israel’s water journey offers a powerful playbook for nations grappling with depleting aquifers. In an exclusive conversation with AgroSpectrum, Noa Amsalem, Water Attach’e, Embassy of Israel in India describes how Israel moved from groundwater dependence to “manufactured water” through large-scale desalination and recycling over 90 per cent of its municipal wastewater. She cautions that while groundwater may resemble oil in its scarcity, its true value is closer to gold — finite, irreplaceable, and too precious to be used only once. For India, Noa stresses that regulation must go hand in hand with alternatives: treated wastewater, drip irrigation, and locally adapted solutions like managed aquifer recharge. She highlights India–Israel Centers of Excellence as living labs for co-developing technologies ranging from fit-for-purpose reuse to digital monitoring of soil and water. Looking ahead, Noa bets on artificial intelligence as the backbone of groundwater governance, provided it is coupled with farmer training and inclusive adoption. Setting the Stage – The Global Groundwater Reckoning Groundwater has become the hidden engine of global agriculture, yet FAO estimates that nearly 20 per cent of aquifers are already overexploited. From Israel’s lens, do you see groundwater as today’s oil — a finite resource heading toward geo-political contestation? Unlike oil, water is not traded on global markets but tied to specific locations, which makes its overuse both a local hydrological crisis and a political challenge. Moreover, unlike oil, water has no substitute for sustaining life. From Israel’s perspective, groundwater is a finite resource, and excessive pumping leads to salinization, land subsidence, and long-term fragility of water systems. In this sense, the analogy of “groundwater as the new oil” is only partially correct: scarcity will influence geopolitics, but the way forward is not through conflict, but through creating alternatives – desalination of brackish and seawater, wastewater reuse for agriculture, and active demand management. These are “manufactured water” sources, produced through human investment and innovation, which reduce dependence on natural aquifers and seasonal rainfall. Israel’s key achievement has been precisely this shift: moving from reliance on natural water sources (groundwater and surface water) to manufactured water (desalinated seawater and treated wastewater). Strategic decisions in the early 2000s – building large-scale desalination plants and mandating wastewater reuse in agriculture – fundamentally transformed the water system. Today, aquifers are still monitored and protected, but they are no longer the sole backbone of national water security. From this perspective, a dual analogy can be made: like oil, groundwater is a limited resource whose value rises as its reserves shrink. Even more, it is like gold – a finite resource whose price is determined by its scarcity, and whose value for agriculture and sustaining life will only continue to grow. The difference is that water is too precious to be used only once. This lesson is relevant globally: sustainability does not come solely from regulation or restricting natural resources, but from investing in alternative sources that reduce the centrality of natural groundwater and mitigate potential conflicts. Israel’s Playbook – What Works, What Doesn’t Israel turned a desert into an agricultural exporter while reducing dependence on aquifers. Which single policy intervention — pricing, metering, or wastewater reuse — had the most transformative impact, and why? Also, Israel enforces mandatory water accounting and volumetric pricing. In countries like India, free electricity fuels rampant groundwater pumping. Is there a middle path between political feasibility and hydrological sustainability? Most transformative intervention: Wastewater reuse. Today Israel recycles more than 90% of its municipal wastewater – the highest rate worldwide (OECD, 2023). This has allowed agriculture to rely significantly less on groundwater, stabilized supplies, and freed natural freshwater for urban and industrial use. Pricing and metering were important, but wastewater reuse was the real game-changer. In the graph, the green line represents the recharge by rainfall, which would have allowed the population to reach a certain size—much smaller than today. The change is already visible two decades ago, with a significant increase in water availability thanks to wastewater reuse and desalination plants. Balancing sustainability and politics: Over-subsidies (such as free electricity or water) can lead to over-pumping. Israel’s experience suggests a middle path: gradually introducing volumetric pricing while providing clear alternatives – treated wastewater, local desalination, or efficient drip irrigation systems.“Gradually” means starting with low prices and increasing step by step so that farmers and the public adapt without shocks. In Israel, this model is also applied to households: a basic “lifeline” amount of water is cheap, and consumption above that is charged at higher rates. Importance of alternatives: Critical. Regulation without alternatives leads to resistance and non-compliance. In Israel, desalination and wastewater reuse gave regulators credibility – limits were enforced, but real solutions were also available. This “regulation plus alternatives” model can be applied elsewhere, provided it is adapted locally (for example, managed aquifer recharge in India). The Indian context – industrial reuse as a funding engine: A notable example comes from Chennai, where large-scale industrial reuse of water has become a major source of revenue. These funds are reinvested in upgrading water supply infrastructure, improving service for households and farmers alike. This demonstrates that industrial reuse of treated water can play a central role in financing more sustainable water systems. Technology & Innovation – The Next Frontier Drip irrigation is now globally associated with Israel. Beyond drip, what are the next big technologies — AI-driven aquifer mapping, precision fertigation, soil microbiome engineering — that could redefine groundwater use? Beyond drip irrigation, the next frontier in agriculture lies in rethinking the very sources of water that sustain it. Desalination of brackish water has already proven to be a viable solution, providing farmers in arid regions with a reliable supply. However, the most significant transformation will come from advancing the use of treated wastewater in agriculture. The future is not just about recycling water but about fit-for-purpose reuse – tailoring water quality to specific crops or agricultural applications. Leafy vegetables consumed raw may require higher-quality water than wheat or cotton. This allows smarter allocation of resources, lowers treatment costs, and reduces energy consumption. Integrating treated wastewater with digital technologies and real-time monitoring further enhances safety and efficiency. Sensors tracking salinity, nutrient levels, and contaminants can dynamically adjust irrigation practices, supporting both food safety and soil health. Another key opportunity lies in hybrid systems, where treated wastewater is combined with desalinated brackish water. Such combinations help balance salinity, reduce soil degradation risks, and create sustainable long-term agricultural practices. Finally, treated wastewater should no longer be seen as a “secondary” solution but as a cornerstone of circular agriculture. Beyond irrigation, wastewater streams provide nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus for fertilizers, and even energy from sludge – turning a waste challenge into a value-generating cycle. Looking ahead, innovation is not just about new water treatment technologies, but about the integrated cycles of water, energy, and nutrients, where treated wastewater becomes a central driver of sustainable agriculture in the decades to come. Global Cooperation and Looking Ahead How do you see the India–Israel partnership evolving in groundwater — joint pilots, technology incubation hubs, or institutional knowledge-sharing? Water alliances are emerging as a natural response to shared challenges and can strengthen regional resilience. Future cooperation is expected to focus less on maximizing supply and more on security, sustainable management, and regional stability. A concrete example is the network of Centers of Excellence established in India with support from Israel’s MASHAV – Israel’s Agency for International Development Cooperation. These centers operate in areas such as precision irrigation, post-harvest management, and water-use efficiency, serving as hubs for training, demonstration, and joint R&D. Indian and Israeli experts learn from each other, testing solutions on the ground before scaling up. The key lesson is clear: Israel can inspire and accelerate innovation, but solutions must be adapted to local conditions – they cannot simply be “copied and pasted.” If you had to bet on one radical solution — AI, bio-innovations, carbon markets for water efficiency, or desalination-for-agriculture — which will define the groundwater economy of 2050? Artificial Intelligence is expected to become the backbone of water management – from large-scale aquifer mapping to precise fertigation in individual fields. Yet in the Indian context, the human factor is critical: millions of farmers and water professionals need training and empowerment to work with these digital systems. The future is therefore not only AI as the “operating system” of water management, but the combination of advanced technology with India’s vast human capital, creating resilient, inclusive, and sustainable water governance. — Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3206/sipping-dragons-vintage-margot-van-lieshout-koopmans-on-marselan-and-chinas-global-wine-play.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3206/sipping-dragons-vintage-margot-van-lieshout-koopmans-on-marselan-and-chinas-global-wine-play.html Fri, 22 Aug 2025 12:01:56 +0530 Image Source: AI In this exclusive interview with AgroSpectrum and NuFFooDS Spectrum, Wine Brand Strategist and Digital Communications Specialist Margot van Lieshout-Koopmans, DipWSET, shares her reflections on the rapid evolution of Chinese wine. She explores how Marselan has become China’s signature grape, adapting across terroirs from Ningxia to Xinjiang and offering a storytelling opportunity through regional diversity. Margot highlights the emerging sensory identity of boutique Chinese wines—ripe yet fresh, textural, and increasingly expressive of place rather than Bordeaux mimicry. She emphasizes the power of visual storytelling and culturally rooted label design in elevating authenticity and overcoming global scepticism. On commercial strategy, she notes rising curiosity in export markets like France and Switzerland, but stresses that sustained growth will hinge on consistency, identity, and immersive wine tourism. Ultimately, she positions Chinese wine not as an imitator, but as a new voice in the global wine chorus—confident, distinctive, and ready for discovery. Section 1: Sensory Identity & Terroir To what extent does Marselan express regional typicity across China’s diverse terroirs—e.g., Ningxia vs Shandong vs Xinjiang—and how can sommeliers communicate these differences effectively on a wine list? China gave Marselan its own sense of identity. And let me tell you, it’s not just a single identity—it’s a whole passport full of terroir stamps. When you travel through China’s wine map (and believe me, it’s a journey), Marselan starts to behave like that friend who picks up the accent of wherever they visit. Put it in Ningxia, and it becomes elegant and structured, with a mineral backbone and just the right whisper of age-worthiness. Shift it to Xinjiang, and suddenly it’s laid-back, sun-drenched, and fruit-forward—think plush dark cherries and a velvety texture, like it’s been soaking up the sun on a desert rooftop. Then move over to Shandong, and you’ll get more herbal notes, maybe even a hint of coastal brine—thanks to the humidity and maritime influence. Even Yunnan is joining the chat with its high-altitude finesse and lifted acidity—light, bright, and almost ‘Pinot-esque’ in delicacy. So, how do sommeliers capture this symphony of styles without turning their wine list into a dissertation? Easy: turn regionality into storytelling. Instead of listing “Marselan, China,” on the winelist – just be bold and granular. For example, try something like: “Marselan – Ningxia: Structured, Mineral, Elegant” “Marselan – Xinjiang: Plush, Ripe, Fruit-Forward” “Marselan – Shandong: Earthy, Herbaceous, Coastal” This isn’t just about flavours—it’s about narrative. Sommeliers have an incredible opportunity here: to frame Chinese Marselan not as a one-size-fits-all variety, but as a landscape in a glass. Imagine offering a flight of Marselan’ from three provinces—it’s like a fast-track Masterclass on Chinese terroir for your guests. One tip? Skip the Bordeaux comparisons. I know it might be tempting, especially given Marselan’s parentage and how influential Bordeaux has been in shaping China’s initial winemaking ambitions. But the new Chinese generation is here to carve out their own groove. And this grape, more than any other, is allowing that expression to sing. Think of Marselan as China’s acoustic set—stripped back, emotionally honest, and regionally fluent. In the end, sommeliers who can translate Marselan’s regional dialects into compelling wine list language—and maybe offer a few playful flights—will not only invite adventurous drinkers but also contribute to demystifying Chinese wine altogether. Because let’s be honest: Marselan might just be China’s answer to Pinot in Burgundy or Syrah in the Northern Rhône. Only this time, it’s not France—it’s Marselan on the New Silk Road. And it tastes like a journey worth taking. What organoleptic traits consistently define boutique Chinese wines that seek to reflect their origin rather than imitate Bordeaux? Are we beginning to see a Chinese ‘palate signature’ emerge? Before setting foot in Yinchuan, I genuinely had no clue what a “truly Chinese” wine tasted like—let alone what it might feel like in the glass. I wasn’t chasing Bordeaux comparisons; I simply didn’t know what to expect. But after swirling and sipping my way through a whirlwind of (boutique) producers, I can confidently say: something is taking shape. Something deliberately Chinese. Let’s talk organoleptic traits—yes, the sensory stuff. These boutique wines aren’t just technically sound—they’re elegant, textural, and expressive. You get ripe, vivid fruit—think black cherry, plum, even hints of goji berries or dates—but with freshness, not jamminess what you might expect. There’s a velvety mouthfeel, with tannins that are structured but silky, like a firm handshake that doesn’t try to crush your fingers. Acidity? Present and well-integrated, especially in high-altitude wines from Ningxia and Yunnan. Minerality shows up often, whispering through the finish like a dusting of chalk or wet stone. And oak? Understated. You’ll find subtle spice from seasoned barrels, but no vanilla bombs here. The emphasis is clearly on purity and place, rather than too much of everything. Now—are we seeing a Chinese palate signature emerge? Yes, if you ask me, but it’s not one-size-fits-all. It’s regionally textured, youth-driven, and intentionally expressive. These wines aren’t trying to be Bordeaux or Barossa. They’re leaning into their own identity, not imitation. I know I’ve only have tasted the tip of the iceberg, and if this is just the start? Then I’d say the Chinese wine signature is still being written—but the handwriting is already showing. How do cultural taste preferences—e.g., tolerance for high tannins or low acidity—shape Chinese winemaking styles, and how should international sommeliers adjust expectations when tasting? If you’ve ever sipped a young Chinese Cabernet with a local winemaker beside you and winced at the tannins, only to watch them nod in serene approval… welcome to China. There’s a distinct cultural palate at work here—one that still favours structure, power, and presence in red wines. High tannins? Often seen as a marker of seriousness. Low acidity? Preferred in many circles, especially when wine is consumed without food or at banquets where softer textures go down easier. The local market evolved with Bordeaux-style reds for a reason—it matched the idea of luxury, gifting, and “drinking prestige.” But the tide is turning. Younger Chinese drinkers—especially urban millennials and Gen Z—are asking for more freshness, fun, and fruit. That’s where boutique winemakers are tuning their styles: dialing back extraction, embracing shorter maceration, exploring pet-nats, and even producing Blanc de Noirs from Malbec. Styles are getting softer, brighter, and more playful. Which is a good thing, they are on a discovery journey themselves. For international sommeliers, this means one thing: reset your tasting lens. If you’re used to the polished acidity of a Barolo or the delicate tannin of a Burgundy Pinot, don’t expect the same here—yet. Understand that Marselan with 14.5 per cent alcohol, velvet tannins, and a soft acidity might be what resonates locally. So how should you approach Chinese wine? Keep an open mind. Drop the Bordeaux comparisons, it’s long gone. Let it speak its own dialect. Ask about context—Is this meant for gifting? Hotpot pairing? Nightlife? Celebrate the boldness. These wines often aim to make a statement, not whisper in the corner. And in China they sure know how to put the emphasis on that. In short, Chinese winemaking is balancing old-world tannic punch with a new-world smile. And sommeliers who learn to navigate both will find themselves ahead of the curve—and sipping something delightfully different. Section 2: Label Design, Authenticity & Storytelling How important is visual storytelling in Chinese wine for international markets? Can culturally inspired label designs help overcome the “copycat” stigma and elevate perceived authenticity? Visual storytelling in Chinese wine? It’s not just important—it’s all or nothing if you ask me. Personally, I love a good wine label that reflects the cultural aspect, without giving me boredom of authentic names and clean labels. Let’s face it: I think the global wine world still views Chinese bottles with a sceptical eye, especially those that haven’t been proven otherwise. There’s this lingering “copycat” cloud—faux châteaux, Bordeaux-lookalikes, and gold-embossed dragons on labels that scream export cliché. But here’s the twist: the most compelling Chinese wines today aren’t trying to look French—they’re trying to look Chinese. And that shift is winning attention. I like to believe that I am openminded, but even me, I had to taste quite a few wines, to change my point of view, and it did significantly. At the Yinchuan Wine Expo, I saw it firsthand. Side by side on the tasting tables were two Marselans: one with a minimalist black-and-gold label in faux Napa chic, and the other with brushstroke calligraphy, soft crimson tones, and a backstory about harvest rituals in Ningxia. Guess which one we couldn’t stop talking about? Cultural label design isn’t kitsch—it’s credibility if you ask me. It signals that the wine is made not just in China, but of China. International buyers are ready to be intrigued—but they need something authentic to latch onto. Symbolism, regional artwork, poetic names—these don’t alienate; they differentiate. And it goes beyond the shelf. A wine with a visual story gives sommeliers something to talk about, Instagrammers something to post, and drinkers something to remember. In a crowded global market, that’s the difference between being a curiosity and being collected. So yes, label design matters. But only when it stops trying to mimic and starts trying to matter. Because if a picture is worth a thousand words, a great Chinese wine label should whisper: “This is who we are.” Section 3: Commercial Strategy & Trade Readiness China exported $33.2M in wine in 2024, with France, Switzerland, and the U.S. among its fastest-growing markets. What do you believe is driving this international curiosity—and is it sustainable? Let’s be honest—when you hear that France is one of China’s fastest-growing wine export markets, your first reaction is probably: “Wait, what?” Just like I did. But yes, it’s happening. And no, it’s not just a novelty moment. Something deeper is brewing—or should I say, fermenting. This surge in international curiosity comes down to three things: narrative shift, rising quality, and strategic identity. First, the story’s changed. China isn’t pitching itself as the next Bordeaux anymore. It’s leaning into Marselan, regional expression, and boutique flair. Wines from Ningxia or Xinjiang aren’t mimicking—they’re making statements. That differentiation is finally resonating, especially with importers hungry for new origin stories and sommeliers building adventurous wine lists. Second, quality is catching up fast. I’ve tasted Marselans that could hold their own next to top-tier Rhône reds. Yes, quality is still inconsistent—but at the high end, it’s getting really interesting. International competitions like CMB (Concours Mondial de Bruxelles) and Decanter Asia are noticing—and awarding. And third, China’s wine exporters are getting smart. They’re not just pushing volume—they’re targeting niche, prestige-driven markets like Switzerland, boutique retailers in France, and curious younger buyers in U.S. cities who want to try something no one else is drinking yet. Now, is it sustainable? I’d say yes—only if China keeps focusing on distinctiveness over duplication. Export growth won’t come from trying to out-Bordeaux. It’ll come from leaning into terroir, crafting a strong Marselan narrative, and embracing cultural authenticity in packaging and messaging. The real question isn’t whether the curiosity will fade—it’s whether the industry will keep feeding it with substance. Because the world is finally asking: “What does China taste like?” And for the first time, there’s a real answer in the glass. What would be your key considerations before listing a Chinese wine in your restaurant/store portfolio—price-quality ratio, cultural novelty, sustainability credentials, or consumer curiosity? Ah, the age-old question: do I list this wine because it’s good, because it’s different, or because it tells a story? When it comes to Chinese wine, the answer is: all of the above—but not in equal measure. First up, price-quality ratio is essential—but with a caveat. Chinese wines are often priced at a premium (€20–€60 is common in export markets), and that doesn’t always match perceived quality. So, I’m not just looking for “value”—I’m looking for wines that overdeliver relative to their story. If it’s a Marselan from Ningxia with a compelling backstory, solid structure, and for example has a gold medal from CMB? That gets my attention, even at €40. Next, cultural novelty matters. Let’s be honest: for many consumers, Chinese wine is still a curiosity. But if that curiosity is paired with authenticity—calligraphy on the label, “local” grape identity, a winery narrative rooted in region—it shifts from gimmick to conversation piece. And that’s gold on a wine list or shelf. Sustainability credentials are a nice bonus—but not a deal-breaker. The narrative is just beginning to form here, and transparency is still evolving. I do look for minimal intervention practices, lighter packaging, or clear water-use strategies in regions like Ningxia, but it’s not yet the tipping point. And finally, yes—consumer curiosity is real. Especially with younger, globally minded drinkers. If I can offer a Chinese pét-nat at a rooftop wine bar or a Marselan flight in a trendy bistro, I know I’ll spark interest. And repeat orders often follow. So, what’s the bottom line? I’ll list a Chinese wine if it tells a story worth sipping, drinks well, and sparks curiosity—because that’s what modern wine drinkers are really buying. Section 4: Wine Tourism & Experience Economy In what ways could the rise of Chinese domestic wine tourism (festival streets, wine-themed architecture, etc.) help shape global perceptions of Chinese wine culture? Let me tell you—if you think wine tourism in China is all dusty tasting rooms and copycat châteaux, you’re missing the revolution. Wine tourism in China is evolving into something bold, immersive, and unapologetically Chinese. From the festival street in the old town part of Yinchuan, complete with neon-lit wine slogans and giant wooden goblets, to wine-themed villages and cellar doors carved into desert cliffs, China is turning wine into a cultural spectacle—and it’s working. I have witnessed it myself. This matters because for global wine perception, experience shapes credibility. The moment you walk through a winery that blends modern design with traditional Chinese motifs, sip a Marselan under the Helan Mountains, or attend a wine and dumpling pairing at a lantern-lit courtyard—it rewires your expectations. Chinese wine stops being “a knockoff” and becomes something rooted, local, and alive. It’s not just about showcasing terroir. It’s about showing culture: calligraphy on labels, tea ceremony-inspired tastings, architecture that draws from dynastic history. These immersive cues tell the world, “We’re not just making wine—we’re making it ours.” And tourists—both domestic and international—become brand storytellers. They Instagram the wine walls, they post videos from underground cellars, they write reviews comparing Yinchuan to Mendoza. That ripple effect is priceless. So, can wine tourism reshape China’s global wine identity? Absolutely. Because nothing says authenticity like being there—and China is curating experiences that are not just visit-worthy, but worldview-shifting. Wine in China is no longer just something you sip. It’s something you see, feel, and share. And that emotional resonance? That’s what changes perception—and builds markets. How much does immersive tourism—cellar tastings, on-site storytelling, DTC experiences—influence your opinion of a wine’s provenance and place? Could Yinchuan or Ningxia become Asia’s answer to Mendoza or Douro? Immersive wine tourism doesn’t just shape my opinion of a wine—it anchors it somehow. Walking through a dusty vineyard in Ningxia, feeling the dry Gobi wind against my face, and then sipping that same vineyard’s Marselan in a cellar built into the rock? Suddenly, that wine isn’t just fruit and oak—it’s context, story, and soil in a glass. This kind of connection matters. It changes how I assess quality, how I talk about the wine to others, and yes—whether I’d put it on a wine list, if I would be responsible for one. When you’ve been there, you carry the story into every glass you pour. As for Yinchuan or Ningxia becoming Asia’s Mendoza or Douro? It’s not just possible—it’s already in motion. Like Mendoza, Ningxia offers dramatic landscapes, extreme terroir, and a sense of frontier spirit. Like the Douro, it pairs history with innovation and draws in visitors with a deep sense of place. But what sets Ningxia apart is its potential to merge traditional Chinese hospitality with contemporary wine culture. We’re talking rooftop tastings under moonlight, calligraphy-inspired labels, and direct-to-consumer platforms that let you buy the wine on your phone before you leave the cellar. That fusion of heritage and innovation is uniquely Chinese—and incredibly marketable. So yes, immersive tourism is not a sideshow—it’s the main act. It builds emotional equity, brand loyalty, and cultural trust. And if Ningxia keeps investing in visitor experience with the same ambition it’s shown in the vineyard, don’t be surprised if it becomes the next must-visit wine region on every sommelier’s bucket list. Section 5: Market Trends & Sommelier Forecasting What emerging Chinese wine styles (e.g., Blanc de Noir from Malbec, Pet-Nats, Marselan rosé) show the greatest promise for global sommeliers curating fresh, adventurous lists? Pfoe! Good question, I think the ‘new wave’ in Chinese wine is having its glow-up on its own — and it’s not just about bold reds anymore. At the Yinchuan Expo, between the structured Marselans and the Bordeaux look-a-likes, I stumbled on wines that made me pause, raise an eyebrow, and grin. Why? Because they weren’t just good—they were playful. And playfulness is exactly what I believe sommeliers (and winelovers) crave when curating dynamic, trend-forward lists. Let’s start with the Blanc de Noir from Malbec. Yes, you read that right. It’s juicy, crisp, and totally unexpected. Think white stone fruit meets a gentle red berry kiss. Serve it chilled with summer dumplings or grilled seafood, and you’ve got a conversation starter. These wines take a familiar grape and flip the script. Then there’s Marselan rosé—arguably China’s freshest flex. With its pale pink hue and surprisingly savory edge, it bridges the gap between Provence chic and local identity. Add some good acidity, and it’s a dream pairing for spicy Sichuan or cold sesame noodles. But here’s one sommeliers need to watch: a slightly chilled Marselan red. Forget the heavy oak bombs—these are mid-weight, fruit-forward, with smooth tannins and a whisper of spice. Cool it down just a touch, and suddenly it’s a red that works on rooftops, with barbecue skewers or late-night bao. It’s vibrant, chillable, and distinctly modern. And don’t overlook China’s growing flirtation with German Riesling that they have a growing interest in importing, since it pairs well with their own cuisine. But now they are growing their own Riesling and Riesling Italico—particularly from higher-altitude vineyards. They’re amazingly refreshing, aromatic, and often bone dry, with a crisp green apple snap and a jasmine lift. Mindblowing amazing if you ask me. Fantastic with seafood, or simply on their own with a view. The common thread? Identity without rigidity. These wines are confident, culinary, and built for curiosity. If you’re building a list for Gen Z sippers, globe-trotting foodies, or just tired palates looking for what’s next—Chinese wines like these are your secret weapon. Trust me: your guests will thank you for that bottle of Marselan rosé once it hits their glass. And you’ll be the one who saw China coming—before it went global. How do you interpret the rise of Marselan as a ‘signature variety’? Could Marselan-based wines become a calling card for Chinese terroir similar to how Carmenère defines Chile or Malbec defines Argentina? Let me put it this way: if Malbec is Argentina’s party trick and Carmenère is Chile’s comeback kid, Marselan is China’s quiet power move. Originally a French crossing of Cabernet Sauvignon and Grenache, Marselan has gone from afterthought to headliner—especially in China, where it’s thriving across terroirs like Ningxia, Xinjiang, Yunnan, and even coastal Shandong. And no, it’s not just surviving—it’s adapting, performing, and even winning medals. What makes Marselan such a strong candidate for “signature variety” status? Simple: it’s expressive, consistent, and distinctively local. In Ningxia, it’s all minerality and structure. In Xinjiang, it bursts with ripe, round fruit. In Yunnan, you get brightness and lifted aromatics. That regional versatility means Marselan doesn’t just tolerate China’s diverse terroirs—it sings in them. But here’s what seals it: Marselan isn’t trying to be anything. It’s becoming a wine that feels genuinely Chinese—deep in colour, smooth in tannins, high in perfume, and ready to evolve. It aligns with the local palate (silky, bold, approachable) but also intrigues international drinkers looking for something new. And just like Malbec helped Argentina step into its own, Marselan gives China a clear identity on the global stage. The CMB even has a Marselan-specific category now—how’s that for confidence? For importers, it’s a no-brainer gateway grape. For sommeliers, it’s a narrative-rich bottle that makes people lean in. And for Chinese winemakers? It’s a blank canvas they’re just beginning to paint. So yes—Marselan is more than a trend. It’s a flag in the ground. If China is defining its own vinous identity, Marselan is the signature at the bottom of the page. Do you foresee a space for low-alcohol, female-oriented, health-positioned Chinese wine products in Western urban markets, particularly for Gen Z and Millennial drinkers? Absolutely. And not just a space—an opportunity waiting to be uncorked. In the West, we’re watching a generational pivot in real time: Gen Z and Millennials are drinking less wine, when they drink wine, they are simply choosing better, and prioritizing wellness without sacrificing pleasure. They want low-alcohol options that still feel stylish, social, and sensorial. Cue China’s emerging “Fit Girl Routine” wines—yes, that’s seems to be a thing—and then you’ve got a match made in market heaven. What’s brilliant is how these products are being tailored for modern lifestyles: Lower ABV, sometimes subtly sweet, often attractively packaged, and framed as part of a holistic, feel-good ritual. Think rosé spritz in a slim can, or a tea-infused light red designed for chilling. They’re positioned not just as beverages, but as lifestyle companions—and that’s exactly how Gen Z wants to drink. Even better? These wines bring cultural intrigue. A light Chinese rosé with osmanthus notes or a gently sparkling rice-blend hybrid (yes, some are experimenting) offers Western drinkers’ novelty plus narrative. It’s different but not intimidating. And let’s not ignore the “she-economy”. In urban centres from LA to London, women are driving health-conscious consumption trends—and they’re looking for products that align with both their values and aesthetics. Beautiful design, clear messaging, and a “drink without guilt” vibe? That’s winning territory. Of course, it’ll take smart branding and the right distribution partners. But the appetite is there—and growing. So yes, Western markets are ready. The question is whether Chinese producers will own this niche or let others capitalize on the concept first. Because trust me, wellness wine with a Chinese twist could be the next cult category. And I, for one, am here for it. Section 6: Cultural Resonance & Wine Diplomacy Would you consider Chinese wine a future competitor, collaborator, or curiosity in your current market strategy? What would it take to shift that perspective? Right now? Chinese wine still sits in the curiosity box for most international markets. But give it five years—and a few smart moves—and it could very well become a collaborator… and eventually, a competitor. Let’s unpack that. As a wine brand strategist, I don’t see Chinese wine as a threat to Burgundy or Rioja. Yet. But I absolutely see it as an emerging partner in the global wine conversation—especially when it leans into what makes it different, not what makes it “almost Bordeaux.” The wines I tasted in Ningxia weren’t trying to out-French the French. They were expressive, terroir-driven, and emotionally resonant. That’s a foundation for collaboration—through wine tourism, joint ventures, or even cross-border wine flights on curated lists. Imagine a Marselan from Ningxia alongside a Carmenère from Chile. That’s not competition—that’s contextual storytelling. Now, what would it take to move from curiosity to mainstay? I say these three things: Consistency in quality. Right now, it’s a mixed bag. To win global trust, Chinese wine needs to tighten up its technical execution—especially at higher price points. So, quality can be seen as face value with its price, now there is no way in identifying quality based on price, you truly must know your Chinese wines to be able to navigate the offering. Brand clarity. Too many labels still feel lost between two worlds. Own the origin story. To me, ditch faux château aesthetics. Be Chinese—and proud. On-the-ground education. Importers, sommeliers, even curious consumers need access to context. Tastings, pop-ups, immersive content—it all helps shift perception from novelty to necessity. So yes ! I see Chinese wine moving from curiosity to collaborator. And if the stars align—better storytelling, better distribution, and better consistency—it might just become your favourite new rival on the shelf. In a market increasingly shaped by identity rather than imitation, what lessons should global winemakers take from China’s shift from Bordeaux mimicry to self-expression? If there’s one thing China’s wine industry is teaching the world right now, it’s this: imitation might open doors, but identity builds homes. For years, Chinese wineries tried to win prestige by copying Bordeaux—châteaux-style estates, Cabernet-led blends, heavy bottles, and gold-foil everything. It got them attention, but not necessarily the affection. Because imitation, while flattering, rarely builds loyalty. Now? We’re watching a pivot—and it’s electric. Wineries are leaning into Marselan as a local hero, crafting labels with traditional calligraphy and lunar symbolism, dragons, temples and creating wines that taste like where they come from. It’s not just a branding shift—it’s a mindset reset. So, what can global winemakers learn from this evolution? Stop chasing prestige. Start chasing personality. The modern consumer doesn’t care where your grapes rank in Parker points—they care what your wine means. Is it personal? Is it place-specific? Is it different? Trust your terroir—even if no one’s heard of it yet. China believed in Ningxia before anyone else did. That belief created an identity, which is now becoming a brand. You don’t need a legacy—you need conviction. Design with culture, not convention. A sleek label in Helvetica doesn’t say “authentic”—it says “template.” Chinese winemakers who embraced cultural cues—symbols, stories, heritage—built more memorable bottles. That works everywhere. In short, the world doesn’t need more regional wannabes. It needs wines that reflect their roots, their people, their point of view. China’s lesson? Be more yourself. Because the boldest move in wine today isn’t making what sells—it’s making what matters. Final Open-Ended Thought What would be your ideal introduction to Chinese wine? A flight of Marselans from different provinces? A blind tasting of Bordeaux vs Ningxia reds? Or a deep-dive into boutique producers with cultural design narratives? Honestly? I want all three—with a side of dumplings and a good story and I am hooked! But if I had to choose one introduction that captures the soul of Chinese wine today, I’d go with a deep dive into boutique producers with cultural design narratives. Why? Because that’s where the real heartbeat is. A Marselan flight is fantastic for terroir nerds (guilty), and a Bordeaux vs. Ningxia blind tasting is great for busting preconceptions. But it’s the boutique stories—the ones where the winemaker’s grandmother inspired the label, or where the wine is named after a Taoist poem—that linger with you long after the last sip. These wines don’t just say, “Made in China.” They say, “This is what it means to be a winemaker in Ningxia, or Yunnan, or Hebei, right now.” They’re small-scale, soulful, and bursting with identity. And when you pair that with thoughtful design—calligraphy, folklore, symbolism—you’re not just drinking wine. You’re experiencing culture. It’s the perfect intro because it breaks every outdated stereotype. It’s not Bordeaux with chopsticks. It’s a new voice in the global wine chorus—clear, confident, and creatively composed. So yes, give me the Marselan. Give me the terroir contrasts. But start me with a walk through China’s boutique wine scene—labels that make you curious, winemakers who speak from the heart, and bottles that proudly wear their origin on their sleeve. Because that, to me, is the real China: not imitating the world—but inviting it in. —– Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com ) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3164/bernhard-kiep-on-making-agriculture-groundwater-positive-tech-policy-and-mindset-shifts.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3164/bernhard-kiep-on-making-agriculture-groundwater-positive-tech-policy-and-mindset-shifts.html Tue, 05 Aug 2025 07:58:01 +0530 From Punjab to Paraná, aquifers are silently collapsing under the weight of modern agriculture. Yet the world’s food systems remain dangerously dependent on groundwater—a resource long considered infinite, now revealing its limits. As irrigation expands, rainfall becomes erratic, and global trade scrutinizes embedded water footprints, a radical rethink is underway. To unpack this inflection point, Agrospectrum spoke to Bernhard L. Kiep, Managing Director at Bermad Brazil and a key board member across pioneering platforms like Pessl Instruments, MAIZALL+ Abramilho, InLida and InstaAgro. A Business Administrator by training and an agri-innovator by conviction, Kiep offers a panoramic yet grounded take on the future of farming in a water-constrained world. India: Aquifer Stress Meets Agri Ambition India extracts over 250 cubic kilometers of groundwater annually—more than the U.S. and China combined. But its irrigation remains notoriously inefficient. What structural reforms are most urgent? The numbers speak for themselves: nearly 90 per cent of groundwater extracted in India goes to agriculture, and much of it is wasted through unlined canals, flood irrigation, and poor scheduling. India needs a layered approach. First, introduce real-time groundwater monitoring networks—what we in Brazil call the aquifer accounting layer. You can’t manage what you can’t measure. Second, decentralize water governance. India’s federal and state coordination on water is still weak. District-level groundwater stewardship councils, composed of hydrologists, farmers, and panchayat leaders, could radically shift behavior. However, most critically—unlock access to technology finance. The best technologies—pressure-compensated drippers, soil-moisture sensors, variable rate fertigation systems—are already available. But a smallholder in Vidarbha or Bundelkhand cannot afford a Rs 75,000 system. The answer lies in government-backed payment guarantees for suppliers and credit lines where repayment is indexed to water saved, not just yields. India has one of the world’s largest drip irrigation coverage areas, yet adoption remains uneven. What are the real barriers to scale? We often conflate installation coverage with active, optimized use. A large portion of India’s drip systems lie underused due to poor after-sales service, lack of agronomic advisory, and power outages that disrupt pressure dynamics. We must move toward closed-loop systems where: Drip irrigation is sensor-controlled based on real evapotranspiration rates; Fertilizer is injected with precision in microdoses (nutrigation); Water use is metered and priced modestly to reflect scarcity. The central problem isn’t technological—it’s behavioral and financial. In Israel, they made hydraulics and fluid mechanics a part of primary education. Every schoolchild understands the math of a leak. In India, we need to create the same water literacy revolution, especially among rural youth. India’s agri-export growth is being questioned for its water footprint. Should the country revise its export priorities based on aquifer stress? To answer this question the first thing that needs to be done is to calculate the value /volume of the water, labor and general efficiency and see if the export revenue makes an economical and sustainable sense. Just calculating the amount of water used per kilogram of food is not the correct answer ! However, we can’t frame this as simply abandoning certain crops. Instead, we must: Diversify the export basket toward crops like millets, oilseeds, and legumes that are less water-intensive; Promote water footprint labelling to help buyers make informed decisions; Shift subsidies from crop-based incentives to resource-use-based incentives. Designing a ‘Groundwater Positive’ District in India- If you could co-create one, what technologies and policies would you deploy? Here’s what I would include: First, hydrological intelligence grid—real-time borewell-level telemetry integrated with rainfall and cropping patterns. Second, zero-leakage infrastructure—all canals lined, community ponds renovated, pressure-managed micro-irrigation promoted. Third, water-linked credit access—loans indexed to water savings, not land size; payments to tech providers guaranteed by public finance instruments Fourth, behavioral nudges—water tariffs (even symbolic) to instil accountability; water budgeting workshops in villages. Fifth, tech cooperatives—shared ownership of fertigation units, digital dashboards, mobile labs—so no farmer is left behind. In short: Make water management aspirational, affordable, and accountable. United States: Farming the Dust Bowl Again? The Ogallala Aquifer—lifeline of the U.S. grain belt—is shrinking. What lessons should the United States draw from its own Dust Bowl history and what it has done since? The story of the Ogallala Aquifer is a study in both ecological overreach and policy reinvention. Stretching beneath eight states—from South Dakota to Texas—the Ogallala once supported nearly 30 per cent of U.S. irrigated agriculture, including America’s wheat, corn, cotton, and beef industries. However, decades of over pumping—especially during the post-World War II agricultural boom—brought the aquifer dangerously close to collapse in several zones. By the 1990s, in states like Kansas and Texas, water tables had dropped by more than 100 feet in some places. The 1930s Dust Bowl was no longer just history—it was a looming sequel. However then came a paradigm shift. Farmers, policymakers, and water managers didn’t wait for federal mandates. They created localized, stakeholder-driven water governance models that offer a blueprint for other countries, including India. Key lessons from the Ogallala experience: First, Decentralized Aquifer Governance:Instead of top-down imposition, states like Kansas established Groundwater Management Districts (GMDs)—democratically elected bodies where farmers had direct control over water policies in their region. These GMDs could set pumping limits, incentivize recharge, and even coordinate collective water-saving efforts. Second, Transparent Monitoring and Enforcement:Over 95 per cent of wells in Nebraska and Kansas are now monitored using flow meters, telemetry, and satellite verification tools. Water rights are digitally tracked, and violations are recorded transparently. Unlike in India, where many borewells are unregistered, Ogallala states treat water as an accountable public asset. Third, Water Allocation Caps and Incentives:In Sheridan County, Kansas, for instance, an innovative pilot known as the Local Enhanced Management Area (LEMA) helped farmers voluntarily reduce water use by 20 per cent over five years—without any drop in yields. How? Through precision irrigation, crop-switching, and rotation-based planning backed by state-verified savings certificates. Fourth, Water as Currency—The Banking Analogy:Ogallala farmers now understand that groundwater is like money in a savings account: withdrawals must be lower than deposits. Some states allow “water banking”—where conserved water in one season can be stored (on paper) and withdrawn in drier years, mimicking fiscal budgeting. Fifth, Civic Engagement, not Bureaucracy:Farmers weren’t just passive implementers—they were co-creators of water policy. Peer-to-peer pressure often proved more effective than fines. The community structure instilled shared responsibility, which India currently lacks due to fragmented jurisdictions. Can such a model work in India? Yes, but with adaptations. India must build community aquifer associations—like Farmer Producer Organizations (FPOs), but with water as the common currency. These groups should: Set local pumping norms; Monitor rainfall-aquifer recharge ratios; Maintain shared water infrastructure; Engage in real-time water budgeting. However, the backbone must be reliable data infrastructure—telemetry wells, flow meters, satellite-aided monitoring systems—integrated into district-level dashboards. India’s National Aquifer Mapping Programme (NAQUIM) is a start, but it needs farmer-facing digital extensions. With the Inflation Reduction Act unlocking billions for climate-smart farming, is the U.S. beginning to monetise water stewardship like carbon programs? The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), passed in 2022, allocated over $20 billion for climate-smart agriculture, including soil moisture conservation, cover cropping, and water-use efficiency. This marks a pivotal moment—water savings are no longer just good practice, they are economic assets. There is growing interest in turning verified water savings into tradable credits—akin to carbon markets. While this market is nascent, it signals a shift from compliance-driven to incentive-driven stewardship. However, caution is needed. If these systems rely solely on subsidies, we risk killing entrepreneurial initiative. Farmers must feel empowered, not dependent. That’s why I believe in the EESG framework—where: Environment protection is integrated with Economics of sustainability, Social equity in rural communities, and Governance via participatory institutions. This is not just a Western template. With tailored execution, India’s sugar belts, Mexico’s maize plains, and Kenya’s tea highlands can all adapt the Ogallala model. In summary: The Ogallala experience shows that groundwater conservation is not a sacrifice—it’s an investment. With local governance, transparent metering, and data-powered feedback loops, aquifers can be stabilized without sacrificing yields. But the first step is to acknowledge that business-as-usual is no longer sustainable. Brazil: Abundant Rain, Emerging Risk Brazil is often viewed as a water-abundant nation. But regions like the Cerrado and Northeast are under growing water stress. Is Brazil prepared for an irrigation-centric future? The illusion of abundance is deceptive. While Brazil holds 12 per cent of global freshwater reserves, water access is highly skewed. The Southeast and Northeast, where much of Brazil’s food and export crops are grown, are increasingly hydrologically fragile. Western Bahia, a booming agricultural frontier, illustrates the looming crisis vividly. Rainfall in the region, once as high as 1,800 mm/year, has been declining steadily since the 1980s, now averaging as low as 950 mm in some parts. Satellite and field data reveal that irrigation withdrawals in Western Bahia surged from ~30 m³/s in 2001 to 76 m³/s in 2020, far outpacing aquifer recharge rates. A major study on the Urucuia Aquifer, one of Brazil’s critical groundwater reserves, shows: Total recharge: 607.8 m³/s; The amount 121.6 m³/s is effectively available; Just 12.4 m³/s is formally granted for use—a mere 10 per cent of what could be sustainable. This gap between hydrological potential and actual governance is Brazil’s Achilles’ heel. At Bermad Brazil, we’ve worked with over 3,000 farmers across +100,000 hectares of irrigated land using: Advanced valve-control systems; Precision fertigation aligned with crop uptake curves; SCADA-linked telemetry for remote water flow optimization. However, nationally, less than 20 per cent of Brazil’s irrigable potential is in use. In Mato Grosso, for example: Out of 10.3 million ha of potential irrigable area, only 178,000 ha are under irrigation (as of 2019). Causes range from lack of tradition, unclear water rights, and external financing bottlenecks. Brazil’s irrigated area is growing by 5,000–6,000 ha per year in Western Bahia alone, and projections suggest: +829,000 ha of expansion in the short-term (Scenario I); +620,000 ha possible in the longer term (Scenario II). However, the question looms: If we measure and understand that some years with more rain, we can irrigate during the following dry season more we will be in harmony with Nature, what we can not do is nothing and not use the watershed to feed the World. Use today’s technology in a smart way to have economical prosperity + sustainability ! How is Brazilian agribusiness approaching irrigation from a resilience—not just yield—perspective? There’s a visible transition underway. High-performing agribusinesses, especially in soy, sugarcane, and cotton, are shifting toward climate-smart irrigation as a competitiveness strategy. These include: Smart Pivot Irrigation with no till practice has improved Organic material in the soil by more than 50 per cent in less than 2-3 years; Drip-to-drone integration: Canopy stress imaging from drones triggers subsoil drip irrigation with surgical precision; Digital twins of irrigation networks: Simulate hydraulic losses and fine-tune runtimes; Nutrient-water synchrony: Fertilizer dosing is guided by real-time crop growth models, not seasonal guessing. Our experience at Bermad shows that in a broad-spectrum when smart irrigation is implemented holistically: Yields rise by +35 per cent; Water use drops by 40 per cent; Energy costs fall by 25 per cent Could Brazil and India collaborate on water governance through BRICS+ channels? Absolutely—and not just in principle. There are already active policy exchanges between Brazil’s ANA (National Water Agency) and Indian think tanks. The recent territorial study visits to Nebraska (2022–2024) by Brazilian stakeholders underscore the appetite for learning from global best practices like the Natural Resources Districts (NRDs) model. Brazil has one clear institutional edge: Faster irrigation financing. A farmer can secure funding for water infrastructure, thanks to: Digitized farm records; Streamlined agri-lending; Fewer bureaucratic layers. India, in contrast, is hampered by delayed credit, fragmented water governance, and slow aquifer data integration. A South-South Water Innovation Platform (India–Brazil–South Africa) could focus on: Aquifer-based irrigation credit models; Joint development of real-time water-use monitoring tools; Blended capital pools for scalable water-tech. By collaborating, nations could shift from being technology takers to becoming innovation architects for groundwater stewardship. —- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3152/decarbonizing-at-scale-how-buyofuel-is-making-green-energy-bankable.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3152/decarbonizing-at-scale-how-buyofuel-is-making-green-energy-bankable.html Thu, 31 Jul 2025 10:00:11 +0530 India’s clean energy ambitions hinge on scalable, accountable, and commercially viable biofuel adoption—and Buyofuel is fast emerging as the digital infrastructure powering that shift. In an exclusive conversation with AgroSpectrum, CEO Kishan Karunakaran outlines how the platform is catalyzing India’s decarbonization goals by transforming agri-residues, used cooking oil, and waste streams into certified, traceable low-carbon fuels for industry. More than a marketplace, Buyofuel digitizes and de-risks a fragmented biofuel sector, offering real-time pricing, quality assurance, and logistics support across biomass, biodiesel, and bio-CNG. The platform is already enabling 30–60 per cent emissions reductions for industrial clients and is gearing up for next-gen fuels like ethanol and SAF, while piloting blockchain-based traceability and AI-led demand forecasting. As India targets 20 per cent ethanol blending by 2025 and a 45 per cent emissions cut by 2030, Karunakaran positions Buyofuel not as a peripheral player but as a foundational node in the circular energy economy. With an eye on Southeast Asia and Africa, Buyofuel is also building a blueprint for emerging markets to leapfrog into a clean, inclusive bioenergy future. Let’s begin with the big picture.India has committed to blending 20 per cent ethanol by 2025 and reducing emissions intensity by 45 per cent by 2030. How does Buyofuel’s model directly contribute to these national targets—and where do you see your platform fitting into India’s broader decarbonization architecture ? Buyofuel directly aligns with India’s ethanol blending and emission reduction goals by digitizing the biofuel supply chain. The platform connects fragmented suppliers of used cooking oil, agri-residues, and biomass to industrial buyers and blenders, ensuring reliable, traceable access to low-carbon fuels. By doing so, it addresses two critical bottlenecks-feedstock mobilization and assured offtake-that often slow down India’s blending and decarbonization targets. Beyond ethanol, Buyofuel facilitates adoption of biodiesel, briquettes, and bio-CNG, all of which displace fossil fuel use in industrial and transport sectors. This not only contributes to Scope 1 and Scope 2 reductions for industries but also aggregates national impact in line with India’s 2030 decarbonization roadmap. By embedding traceability and quality assurance into each transaction, the platform ensures every tonne of biofuel traded can be credibly linked to carbon savings. In effect, Buyofuel acts as a digital bridge between India’s ambitious targets and ground-level execution, accelerating both scale and trust. Buyofuel is described as India’s first digital marketplace for biofuels.Is this just a tech-enabled trading platform—or do you see it as a strategic node in India’s circular energy economy? How does the platform solve for scale, speed, and standardization in a fragmented biofuel supply chain? Buyofuel is much more than a tech-enabled marketplace. While it began as a platform to match biofuel buyers and sellers, its real value lies in being a strategic node of India’s circular energy economy. The platform converts waste streams-used cooking oil, crop residues, food waste-into tradable, bankable energy, aligning with both sustainability and energy security goals. To solve for scale, Buyofuel digitizes a highly fragmented supply chain, onboarding small suppliers and aggregators who previously lacked market access. For speed, the platform uses real-time pricing algorithms and logistics support, reducing transaction cycles from weeks to days. For standardization, Buyofuel embeds quality certification, traceability tools like BuyoTrace, and compliance with BIS standards, ensuring consistency across fuels and geographies. By integrating technology, market access, and trust infrastructure, Buyofuel transforms an informal, scattered sector into a structured, scalable marketplace that can support India’s energy transition at pace. It is infrastructure, not just a platform. Let’s talk about industrial decarbonisation.From cement kilns to commercial fleets, how are your clients using Buyofuel to switch to low-carbon fuels—and what kind of real-world emissions reductions are being recorded across sectors? Buyofuel is enabling industrial decarbonization at scale by providing direct access to low-carbon fuels. Cement plants are substituting coal with biomass briquettes, reducing carbon intensity of clinker production. Food processing industries and hotel chains are replacing furnace oil with biodiesel sourced via the platform, lowering Scope 1 emissions. Fleet operators are piloting bio-CNG for logistics, particularly in urban clusters. On average, industries switching to biofuels through Buyofuel are reporting 30-60 per cent reductions in their carbon footprint from fuel use, depending on the sector and feedstock. For instance, every tonne of biomass briquettes displaces nearly 1.5 tonnes of CO₂ equivalent compared to coal. Similarly, a switch from diesel to biodiesel reduces lifecycle emissions by up to 78 per cent. Buyofuel captures and reports these savings through traceability, giving clients verifiable ESG metrics. By making these reductions measurable and auditable, the platform doesn’t just supply fuel—it enables industries to actively demonstrate and quantify progress toward decarbonization targets. You’re operating at the convergence of waste, energy, and policy.India produces more than 500 million tonnes of agri-residues annually, much of which is burned. How is Buyofuel turning this into a bankable energy stream—and are there policy or logistical bottlenecks still holding back this transition? India generates over 500 million tonnes of agricultural residues annually, much of which is burned, worsening air pollution and wasting energy potential. Buyofuel digitizes this challenge into an opportunity by connecting local aggregators, farmers, and biomass processors to industrial buyers seeking affordable, low-carbon fuels. Through its marketplace, residues like rice husk, bagasse, and cotton stalks are converted into briquettes, pellets, or directly used for bio-CNG feedstock. This creates additional farmer income streams while reducing open-field burning. However, logistical challenges remain-collection, storage, and transport of bulky residues is expensive, and seasonal availability creates supply gaps. Policy bottlenecks include limited minimum support pricing for biomass and uneven state-level incentives. Buyofuel bridges these gaps by pooling demand, supporting logistics partners, and creating assured offtake markets. But scaling this transition fully will require targeted policy support—such as viability gap funding and carbon credit monetization-to make residue-to-energy economically attractive for all stakeholders across India’s agricultural belt. We’re increasingly seeing sustainability move from CSR to CFO.How does Buyofuel enable your industrial customers to meet ESG benchmarks or reduce Scope 1/2 emissions? Are carbon credits or verifiable emission savings part of the platform’s roadmap? Sustainability has moved from boardrooms to balance sheets, and Buyofuel positions itself as a tool for CFOs and sustainability officers alike. By switching to biofuels through the platform, industries directly reduce Scope 1 emissions from combustion and Scope 2 emissions linked to grid electricity, where bio-CNG and biomass replace conventional fuels. The platform also provides auditable data on emissions savings, supporting ESG disclosures and compliance with global reporting frameworks such as GRI and CDP. This transparency allows industrial clients to quantify carbon reductions in annual sustainability reports, strengthening investor confidence. Buyofuel’s roadmap includes enabling carbon credits by linking verified transactions to policy-aligned carbon markets. This will give industries not only fuel cost savings but also a second layer of financial value through credits. In essence, Buyofuel transforms compliance into competitive advantage by embedding decarbonization into daily procurement, making sustainability both measurable and monetizable for Indian industry. Trust is a major concern in digital fuel trading.What mechanisms—pricing algorithms, quality certification, logistics tracking—have you built to ensure industrial buyers are willing to shift fuel procurement online? Trust is the foundation of digital procurement, and Buyofuel has built mechanisms to address quality, pricing, and delivery assurance. The platform integrates transparent pricing algorithms based on live market conditions, reducing buyer skepticism around cost volatility. For quality, every supplier is required to provide certification in line with BIS standards, supported by BuyoTrace, a digital tool that ensures traceability of feedstock origins and production processes. Logistics tracking, through GPS-enabled transport partners, allows buyers to monitor their consignment in real time. In cases of dispute, Buyofuel provides arbitration and escrow-linked payments, ensuring funds are released only upon confirmed delivery. These mechanisms build confidence among large industrial clients, who otherwise face high risk in informal markets. By combining technology with trust infrastructure, Buyofuel creates an environment where industries are willing-and increasingly eager-to shift fuel procurement online, knowing their cost, quality, and sustainability criteria are consistently met. Biofuel adoption often suffers from variability in quality and availability.How do you ensure consistent fuel specs and supply chain reliability across regions, and how are you integrating with local aggregators or processors to close the last-mile gap? Variability in fuel quality and supply has historically slowed biofuel adoption. Buyofuel addresses this challenge by creating an integrated ecosystem of verified suppliers, processors, and logistics partners. The platform standardizes specifications-such as calorific value for briquettes or ester content for biodiesel-against national and international benchmarks, rejecting suppliers who do not comply. To ensure consistency across regions, Buyofuel partners with local aggregators and processors, creating decentralized nodes of supply that can meet demand without long-distance transport bottlenecks. The platform also employs predictive analytics to forecast demand and manage seasonal fluctuations in feedstock availability. Logistics tie-ups ensure last-mile delivery, particularly for smaller MSME buyers. Together, these measures close the reliability gap, ensuring industries have continuous access to compliant, quality-assured fuels. By converting a fragmented, informal supply chain into a digitally integrated network, Buyofuel makes biofuel procurement as predictable and professional as conventional fossil fuel sourcing. Let’s zoom out.As the IEA predicts bioenergy will account for nearly 30 per cent of global renewable energy demand by 2030, what does Buyofuel’s global ambition look like? Is there a blueprint for scaling to other emerging markets? As the International Energy Agency projects bioenergy to contribute 30 per cent of global renewable demand by 2030, Buyofuel sees itself as a scalable model for other emerging economies facing similar challenges of waste, energy access, and decarbonization. Its blueprint rests on three pillars: digitizing fragmented feedstock supply, embedding trust through traceability and certification, and enabling policy-linked adoption at scale. Southeast Asia, with its abundance of palm oil residues and rising industrial energy demand, is a natural next market. Africa, where biomass is already the dominant energy source but lacks formal markets, offers another opportunity. Buyofuel’s model can be adapted through local aggregator partnerships and integration with regional carbon markets. While India remains its home base, the company envisions becoming a pan-emerging-market infrastructure provider for biofuels, enabling developing economies to leapfrog fossil dependence. Global ambition, for Buyofuel, means scaling trust infrastructure across borders while retaining local adaptability. Innovation at the edge: compressed biogas, ethanol, and beyond.What’s the next frontier for Buyofuel—are you venturing into new fuel categories, blockchain traceability, or AI-driven fuel demand forecasting? Buyofuel’s future lies in innovation that integrates fuels, technology, and finance. The platform is expanding beyond biomass, biodiesel, and bio-CNG into newer categories like ethanol and sustainable aviation fuel, preparing for the next wave of demand. On the technology side, blockchain-based traceability is being piloted to provide immutable records of feedstock origin and carbon savings, which will be crucial for carbon credit trading. AI-driven forecasting is another frontier-using machine learning to predict regional demand patterns, optimize logistics, and align suppliers with upcoming industrial needs. These innovations not only improve efficiency but also enhance trust, compliance, and monetization opportunities for stakeholders. By combining fuel diversification with digital intelligence, Buyofuel aims to future-proof its marketplace, ensuring it remains relevant as India’s energy transition evolves from coal replacement today to aviation and hydrogen fuels tomorrow. Innovation at the edge ensures Buyofuel grows with, and ahead of, market needs. Final question: You’re not just selling fuel—you’re shaping infrastructure.In your view, what role will digital marketplaces like Buyofuel play in making India's clean energy transition faster, fairer, and commercially viable? Digital marketplaces like Buyofuel are not just intermediaries; they are enablers of infrastructure. India’s clean energy transition requires not only new fuel technologies but also systems that can mobilize waste, aggregate supply, and guarantee reliable, transparent access to biofuels at scale. Buyofuel provides that infrastructure digitally, bridging the gap between policy ambition and industrial adoption. By lowering transaction costs, ensuring standardization, and embedding trust mechanisms, it accelerates adoption across MSMEs and large industries alike. Equally important, it democratizes participation, enabling small farmers, aggregators, and processors to plug into national decarbonization goals. The result is a faster, fairer, and commercially viable energy transition. In a country where logistics and trust often block sustainable fuel adoption, Buyofuel represents a model for how digital ecosystems can make clean energy accessible, affordable, and accountable. In the broader decarbonization architecture, it is not peripheral-it is foundational. --- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3135/rooted-in-precision-ram-lisaey-on-scaling-israeli-water-tech-for-thirsty-world.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3135/rooted-in-precision-ram-lisaey-on-scaling-israeli-water-tech-for-thirsty-world.html Fri, 25 Jul 2025 16:48:48 +0530 In an era of deepening groundwater crises across Asia and Africa, Israel’s desert-honed innovations offer a compelling blueprint for sustainable farming. At the heart of this transformation is precision irrigation—pioneered by Netafim—which has redefined how crops can thrive with minimal water. But beyond drip systems, Israel’s integrated approach now includes root-zone moisture sensing, AI-driven scheduling, and large-scale treated wastewater reuse. In this exclusive AgroSpectrum interview, Ram Lisaey, Head of Global Agronomy at Netafim, shares how these technologies are being adapted for high-evapotranspiration regions from Maharashtra to the Sahel. He explains why real-time soil data is more powerful than rainfall averages, and why AI is useful—but not always essential—for farmers. Drawing on decades of field experience, Lisaey offers insights on training models, policy frameworks, and public–private partnerships that have scaled Israeli water-tech in low-income regions. As groundwater depletion accelerates, his message is clear: sustainable irrigation must move from theory to field, one root zone at a time. What are the key Israeli technologies (e.g., precision irrigation, moisture sensors, AI-integrated decision platforms) that directly reduce groundwater extraction in agriculture? Israel’s arid climate and chronic freshwater scarcity have long driven the country to pioneer groundbreaking water-saving technologies. At the forefront is precision irrigation—most notably drip irrigation, a game-changing innovation by Netafim. By delivering water and nutrients directly to the root zone of each plant, this method minimizes evaporation, runoff, and percolation losses, dramatically reducing water use compared to conventional flood or sprinkler systems. Micro-sprinklers, a variant suited for specific soil types and crop patterns, offer similar efficiency gains. Complementing this is a growing ecosystem of root-zone moisture sensors, such as Netafim’s GrowSphere and platforms developed by CropX, which provide farmers with real-time data on soil moisture dynamics. These sensors empower more responsive and accurate irrigation, preventing overwatering and optimizing application timing. Israeli firms are also experimenting with AI-integrated irrigation platforms that combine sensor data, satellite imagery, weather forecasts, and plant physiology models to generate predictive watering schedules. While these systems show promise, their full value proposition—particularly for smallholders—remains under evaluation. Beyond field-level technologies, Israel has made major strides in large-scale wastewater treatment and reuse, recycling nearly 90 per cent of its municipal wastewater for agriculture. This provides a reliable, year-round water source that significantly reduces pressure on freshwater and groundwater reserves. Desalination, led by companies like IDE Technologies, plays a complementary role, supplying potable water to cities and thereby freeing up more natural freshwater for food production. At a systems level, water management software and analytics platforms further enhance efficiency by helping farmers monitor usage, diagnose inefficiencies, and fine-tune irrigation strategies across large-scale operations. How effective are Israeli root-zone moisture sensing systems (e.g., from companies like CropX or Saturas) in improving water-use efficiency at scale? Israeli root-zone sensing systems have ushered in a new era of precision and responsiveness in irrigation management. By delivering real-time, granular data on soil moisture, these tools enable dynamic adjustments to irrigation schedules—far superior to traditional methods based on fixed timers or visual cues, which often result in overwatering. The result is a measurable reduction in water waste, as farmers gain the ability to irrigate only when and where it’s needed, minimizing deep percolation and runoff. Field studies have shown water savings of 20 per cent to 50 per cent without any compromise in yield. Equally important is the impact on nutrient efficiency. Maintaining optimal soil moisture levels enhances nutrient uptake by crops, contributing to better plant health and potentially reducing fertilizer inputs. These systems are also highly scalable—whether used on smallholder plots or across industrial-scale farms. Wireless sensor networks and cloud-based platforms allow for remote monitoring and control, making real-time irrigation optimization possible across diverse geographies. The data collected feeds into broader decision-support tools, enabling continuous refinement of irrigation strategies and giving farmers deeper insight into the precise water needs of different crops and soil profiles. What role is artificial intelligence playing in predictive irrigation scheduling, and how do Israeli platforms like SupPlant or Tal-Ya Water Technologies differentiate themselves? Artificial intelligence is poised to play a transformative role in irrigation management, shifting systems from reactive, sensor-based models to proactive and predictive water scheduling. Israeli platforms are at the forefront of this shift, using machine learning to synthesize a wide array of data sources—including weather forecasts, historical crop performance, satellite imagery, soil profiles, and crop phenology. These AI-driven tools can anticipate a plant’s water needs days or even weeks in advance, optimizing irrigation strategies tailored to specific crops, soils, and microclimates. However, the cost-benefit equation for such systems remains under scrutiny. The technology itself is not prohibitively complex or expensive, but its added value may be marginal for many growers, particularly smallholders who already achieve substantial water savings with simpler sensor-based approaches. In many cases, the hyper-optimization that AI enables does not translate into significant enough gains to justify adoption. Nonetheless, the promise of continuous learning—where algorithms improve over time—and the use of intuitive, user-friendly interfaces make these platforms increasingly accessible. For large-scale operations or regions facing acute water stress, predictive AI scheduling may eventually become an indispensable tool. To what degree are Israeli innovations in treated wastewater reuse (e.g., Shafdan model) helping reduce dependence on groundwater in agriculture? Israeli innovations in treated wastewater reuse have become a global benchmark for reducing agricultural dependence on groundwater. Nowhere is this more evident than in the Shafdan model, a pioneering example of circular water management at scale. Israel currently recycles nearly 90 per cent of its municipal wastewater for agriculture—the highest reuse rate in the world—thanks to decades of policy support, infrastructure investment, and public-private collaboration. At the heart of this system, the Shafdan wastewater treatment facility near Tel Aviv treats urban effluent and recharges it into the coastal aquifer, where it undergoes natural filtration through Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR). This dual process not only yields high-quality irrigation water suitable for all crop types, but also helps stabilize aquifer levels and protect against seawater intrusion. As a result, farmers gain a year-round, drought-resilient water source, sharply reducing pressure on Israel’s limited freshwater reserves. This model does more than conserve groundwater—it creates a sustainable water cycle where waste becomes a strategic resource. Over time, the system has also proven economically viable, with reliable infrastructure and water quality standards that make recycled water both safe and attractive for agricultural use. In a water-stressed world, Israel’s wastewater reuse paradigm offers a blueprint for climate-resilient farming. How have Israeli groundwater innovations been localized for high-evapotranspiration regions in Africa or South Asia? Israeli groundwater-saving innovations have been effectively localized for high-evapotranspiration (ET) regions across Africa and South Asia, thanks to a thoughtful blend of technological adaptation and on-the-ground capacity building. Companies like Netafim have played a pivotal role in tailoring drip irrigation systems to meet the needs of smallholder farmers, developing affordable, low-pressure solutions that function without electricity by harnessing gravity and elevation. These systems are often customized to suit local crop varieties—such as rice, cotton, and region-specific vegetables—by adjusting emitter spacing and irrigation schedules. Beyond irrigation hardware, Israeli know-how in water harvesting and storage—including rainwater collection systems, lined farm ponds, and underground reservoirs—has proven critical in areas with seasonal rainfall and erratic monsoons. Equally relevant is Israel’s expertise in saline water management, where practices like selective crop breeding, blending saline groundwater with fresh sources, and small-scale desalination have been adapted to help farmers in brackish or coastal zones. However, technology alone isn’t enough. A major driver of successful localization has been intensive capacity building, including farmer training in precision irrigation and soil moisture monitoring, as well as “training of trainers” programs that equip local extension workers to multiply impact. Demonstration farms serve as real-world testing grounds, building trust by showing how these solutions perform under local agro-climatic conditions. Together, these strategies reflect Israel’s commitment not just to exporting tools, but to co-creating sustainable water management systems in partnership with the Global South. Are there examples of successful transfer models? Two flagship initiatives exemplify how Israeli water-saving agri-tech has been successfully scaled in low-income regions: the India–Israel Centres of Excellence and the MASHAV programs in Sub-Saharan Africa. In India, the Centres of Excellence—jointly established across multiple states—function as innovation hubs where Israeli technologies are demonstrated, adapted, and disseminated. These centers focus on precision irrigation, protected cultivation, fertigation, and integrated water management, all customized to suit India’s diverse agro-climatic zones. Thousands of farmers, extension workers, and agri-entrepreneurs are trained annually, creating a ripple effect of knowledge transfer and adoption. Meanwhile, Israel’s development agency MASHAV has been instrumental across Africa in promoting climate-resilient agriculture and efficient water use. Its programs blend technology transfer with expert training in areas such as drip irrigation, water harvesting, and saline water management. In drought-prone dryland zones, MASHAV initiatives have strengthened food security and water resilience by equipping farmers with practical, low-cost irrigation techniques and conservation strategies tailored to harsh environmental conditions. Together, these programs illustrate Israel’s long-term, partnership-driven approach to agricultural development—rooted not just in exporting technology, but in building local capacity and context-specific solutions. What lessons can be drawn from Israeli partnerships (e.g., MASHAV programs, India-Israel Centres of Excellence) in scaling water-saving agri-tech in low-income regions? Israeli partnerships—particularly through MASHAV programs in Africa and the India–Israel Centres of Excellence—have offered vital lessons in scaling water-saving agri-tech across low-income regions. At the core of their success is a demand-driven approach, ensuring technologies align with the actual needs and priorities of local farmers rather than imposing one-size-fits-all solutions. Netafim has played a pivotal role in many of these collaborations, not just as a technology provider but as a long-term partner in knowledge transfer and system design. Demonstration farms and field pilots are critical in this context, allowing farmers to see the tangible benefits of precision irrigation and water-efficient practices under real-world conditions. These initiatives succeed not by isolating technology, but by taking a holistic approach—integrating agronomy, post-harvest value chains, and market access to ensure economic viability. Importantly, lasting impact requires long-term engagement, not just short-term interventions. Public-private collaboration—between MASHAV, Netafim, local governments, and farming communities—has proven essential to sustaining innovation and scaling it responsibly. Finally, successful adoption hinges on addressing socio-economic realities, from affordability and access to credit to cultural farming practices, all of which must be factored into design and delivery. What financing or incentive mechanisms (e.g., public-private partnerships, carbon-linked irrigation credits) have proven effective in scaling Israeli water-tech abroad? Scaling Israeli water-tech in global markets, particularly in developing regions, depends on a diverse set of financing and incentive mechanisms designed to reduce risk, encourage adoption, and align commercial and development goals. Public–private partnerships (PPPs) have proven especially effective—combining the innovation and efficiency of Israeli firms like Netafim with the enabling support of host-country governments, which may contribute land, infrastructure, or policy frameworks. These partnerships often act as springboards for broader ecosystem development. Development aid and concessional loans from agencies such as the World Bank, African Development Bank, and USAID further expand opportunities. Many MASHAV-backed initiatives leverage these funds to support water infrastructure and agri-tech deployment. Meanwhile, export credit guarantees from Israeli and international agencies help reduce financial risk for companies entering new or unstable markets. Emerging models such as impact investing and blended finance—which merge private capital with public or philanthropic funding—are also gaining traction. These structures appeal to investors seeking both financial returns and measurable social or environmental outcomes, such as improved water efficiency or smallholder resilience. One particularly innovative approach on the horizon is carbon-linked irrigation credits, which recognize that reducing energy-intensive groundwater pumping also reduces emissions. Though still in early stages, such schemes could create new revenue streams for farmers adopting efficient irrigation systems. On the ground, local government subsidies, tax incentives, and “pay-for-performance” models—where financial returns are tied to verified water savings or yield improvements—can further drive adoption. These layered financing strategies are essential to turning Israeli water-tech into globally scalable solutions, especially in resource-constrained regions. Can Israel’s experience with desert agriculture and saline water farming inform long-term strategies to reduce freshwater groundwater dependence globally? Israel’s decades-long journey in overcoming acute water scarcity offers a powerful roadmap for regions seeking to reduce dependence on freshwater groundwater sources. Its experience proves that necessity can drive radical agricultural innovation—from drip irrigation and wastewater reuse to saline water farming. What sets Israel apart is its holistic approach to water management, integrating multiple strategies such as efficient irrigation, desalination, policy enforcement, and treated wastewater reuse into a coherent national framework. One of Israel’s most impactful contributions is its demonstration that saline and non-conventional water sources—once dismissed as unusable—can be leveraged productively for agriculture. Through extensive crop selection and breeding programs, Israeli researchers have developed salt-tolerant and drought-resilient varieties that make farming viable even in brackish or arid environments. This has redefined the potential of desert and coastal regions around the world. Equally important is the economic viability of Israel’s arid-zone agriculture. Far from being subsistence-based, these farming systems are market-oriented, export-ready, and technologically advanced—challenging the long-held assumption that deserts are unproductive by default. Underpinning this success is a robust network of policies and regulatory frameworks governing water pricing, quality standards, and infrastructure development. Finally, Israel’s proven ability to transfer and adapt its technologies across geographies—through partnerships, training programs, and demonstration farms—shows that its model is not only effective, but exportable. For countries in Africa, South Asia, or the MENA region, the Israeli experience serves not just as inspiration, but as a practical template for water-secure, climate-resilient agriculture. What role can Israeli institutions play in building regional groundwater resilience alliances with countries in the MENA, South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa?Israeli institutions are uniquely positioned to spearhead regional alliances aimed at strengthening groundwater resilience across MENA, South Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa—regions facing mounting water stress and climate volatility. With deep expertise housed in universities like Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and Technion, as well as national bodies like MASHAV and the Water Authority, Israel can offer critical knowledge in hydrogeology, managed aquifer recharge (MAR), and sustainable groundwater abstraction techniques. This expertise is already being applied domestically and can be adapted through joint R&D initiatives that address the distinct hydrogeological challenges of partner nations. Capacity-building is another critical avenue where Israel can lead—through specialized training programs, workshops, and study tours for water managers, engineers, and policymakers. By grounding theory in practice, pilot projects and demonstration farms showcasing efficient groundwater management—including in transboundary aquifer systems—can foster trust and prove shared benefits. In parallel, Israeli legal and technical experts can offer guidance on establishing policy frameworks, such as abstraction permitting, pollution controls, and water quality standards. Equally important is the role of Israeli institutions in facilitating public–private partnerships, connecting cutting-edge water-tech firms with governments, NGOs, and local enterprises to scale solutions on the ground. On the diplomatic front, Israel’s experience in regional water cooperation equips it to host or mediate multilateral dialogues on shared aquifers, especially critical in geopolitically sensitive zones like the Middle East. Finally, all of this must be embedded within broader climate adaptation strategies, recognizing that changing precipitation patterns and rising temperatures will increasingly shape groundwater recharge dynamics. Through these multiple channels, Israel can act not just as a technology provider, but as a strategic ally in global groundwater resilience. —————- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3108/shrimp-in-transition-why-indonesia-is-industrys-new-benchmark.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3108/shrimp-in-transition-why-indonesia-is-industrys-new-benchmark.html Wed, 16 Jul 2025 07:54:10 +0530 Image Source: Canva Halfway into 2025, the global shrimp industry is entering a new phase of competitive realignment. Indonesia’s May export performance—a 27 per cent year-on-year (YoY) rise in volume and 33 per cent increase in value—signals a strategic shift that goes beyond opportunistic trade acceleration. With 89,224 metric tons exported from January through May valued at $756 million, Indonesia is not only consolidating its global presence but also diversifying its product portfolio and export destinations in a calculated bid to counterbalance potential U.S. trade actions. The export surge places Indonesia on a fresh growth trajectory, even as established powerhouses like Ecuador and India grapple with cost structures, climate risks, and shifting market demands. According to Shrimp Insight Analysis, Indonesia’s YTD figures reflect not just quantity but also discernible progress in product sophistication. Cooked and marinated shrimp exports surged by 61 per cent YoY in May and 37 per cent YTD, indicating a push towards higher-margin, value-added segments. Meanwhile, raw Vannamei exports, the country’s volume mainstay, rose 20 per cent YTD. Breaded shrimp followed with a respectable 8 per cent growth, while raw P. monodon exports continued their multi-year slide, falling 14 per cent YTD—a symptom of broader species transition and shifting aquaculture economics. Market-wise, Indonesia’s shipments to the U.S. totaled nearly 60,000 MT in five months—up 14 per cent YoY and accounting for two-thirds of its global exports. Japan, the second-largest destination, absorbed 13,359 MT, up 7 per cent YTD. Meanwhile, a rebound in China (+21 per cent YTD) and a 63 per cent surge in EU-27 exports highlight Jakarta’s efforts to widen its demand footprint beyond the U.S., potentially insulating itself from the impending August anti-dumping tariff review (According to Shrimp Insight Analysis). This diversification and value capture strategy is particularly critical for Indonesia as it aims to scale its shrimp sector to $2 billion by 2025 and double exports by 2029. The short-term frontloading of shipments appears tactical, but the sustained growth in high-value categories underscores longer-term structural shifts in processing capacity, traceability, and compliance. Benchmarking the Big Five: Ecuador, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, and China To understand Indonesia’s trajectory in context, it’s essential to benchmark it against other leading exporters—Ecuador, India, Vietnam, and China—each with distinct strengths, constraints, and market orientations. Ecuador: The Efficiency King Facing Climate CostsEcuador remains the world’s largest shrimp exporter, thanks to its high-efficiency pond systems, integration, and cost competitiveness. With 1.3 million MT exported in 2024 valued at over $7 billion, Ecuador has scale on its side. In the first five months of 2025, Ecuador exported approximately 593,080 metric tons of shrimp—up 17 per cent YoY—with export revenues totaling $3.135 billion, marking a 26 per cent value increase. Ecuador’s average export price per kilogram during this period stood at approximately $5.29, reflecting its dominance in high-volume raw head-on shrimp shipped to China, albeit at lower margins compared to value-added exports. India: The Reformist Under PressureIndia, historically the second-largest exporter, is contending with structural pressures. Despite significant growth in the last decade, India saw a marginal YoY decline in 2024 exports due to farm gate price volatility, rising feed costs, and quality-related rejections in key markets like the U.S. and Japan. In early 2025, India exported approximately 94,500 MT of shrimp, down around 7 per cent, while revenues edged up modestly to $1.1 billion—a 12 per cent YoY increase. This translates to an average export price of $11.64 per kilogram, indicating a favorable shift toward higher-value products despite declining volumes. Vietnam: Stability and Diversification Amid Rising CostsVietnam remains a solid, well-diversified player with strong ties to the EU, U.S., and China. While not growing as fast as Indonesia, Vietnam’s value-added capabilities and Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) give it steady market access and a competitive edge in regulatory compliance. As of May 2025, Vietnam’s shrimp export value surged 22.3 per cent YoY, reaching approximately $4.3 billion. With a volume base of about 340,000 MT for the same period, Vietnam’s average export price hovered around $12.65 per kilogram—one of the highest among major exporters, reflecting its strong emphasis on processed, certified shrimp. China: A Rebalancing Act Between Import and ExportChina remains a unique case—both a major importer and a modest exporter of shrimp. With rising domestic consumption and robust processing infrastructure, China plays a pivotal role in global shrimp reprocessing and redistribution. In the first five months of 2025, China imported 343,787 MT of shrimp, a 7 per cent YoY decline, though the import value rose by 2 per cent to $1.82 billion. This implies an average import price of $5.29 per kilogram, underscoring its price-sensitive bulk-buying model. China’s own exports are smaller in scale and lower in average value, often dominated by re-exported products. Indonesia: Climbing the Value LadderIn comparison, Indonesia’s average export price from January to May 2025 stood at $8.47 per kilogram, derived from $756 million in value over 89,224 MT in volume. This marks a notable climb, especially given the country’s emphasis on cooked, marinated, and breaded products. Indonesia’s pricing is increasingly bridging the gap between high-volume exporters like Ecuador and high-value players like Vietnam, reflecting its dual strategy of scaling both volume and margin. Trade Geopolitics: The Anti-Dumping Cloud Much of Indonesia’s recent export tempo has been influenced by the pending U.S. anti-dumping review. The expected decision by August 1 could impose new tariffs on Indonesian shrimp, depending on preliminary margins assigned during the administrative review. While the full-year impact is uncertain, Indonesian firms appear to be mitigating the risk by aggressively front-loading shipments and entering alternate markets. If tariffs materialize, Indonesia could pivot further toward the EU, Middle East, and East Asia—especially China and South Korea. Its fast-growing breaded and marinated categories are also more appealing to markets with rising demand for ready-to-eat seafood. Product Innovation and Branding: The Differentiation Frontier One of the more significant undercurrents in Indonesia’s 2025 story is its embrace of processed shrimp formats. Cooked and marinated shrimp—now nearly a third of its total exports—command higher prices, longer shelf life, and lower rejection risk. These segments also benefit from rising health-consciousness and convenience demand in key importing regions. Contrast this with Ecuador’s raw shrimp export model or India’s bulk frozen Vannamei dominance, and Indonesia’s approach looks increasingly future-ready. Whether this shift can be consolidated with stronger branding, certification (e.g., ASC, BAP), and digital traceability will determine its long-term ability to compete with Vietnam in the premium segment. Implications for India and Others India must take note of Indonesia’s recent agility and processing-centric growth. While India has strong backward integration and a large aquaculture base, it lags in branding, cold chain infrastructure, and premium market development. There’s a lesson here: front-loading compliance and investing in product innovation can not only unlock margins but also cushion against external shocks. For Vietnam, the competitive threat from Indonesia is real, particularly in processed shrimp. Ecuador, while unmatched in scale, may need to prioritize resilience and diversification. China, meanwhile, remains an indispensable demand-side actor, with its recovery or retreat impacting all major exporters. Conclusion: From Volume to Value Indonesia’s breakout performance in 2025 suggests that it is no longer content with being a peripheral player in the global shrimp market. Its surge in cooked and marinated shrimp, expansion into EU and Chinese markets, and strategic shipment timing ahead of the U.S. trade decision all point to a maturing industry. But maintaining this trajectory will require more than export momentum. Investment in sustainability, traceability, and branding must follow. The global shrimp race is no longer just about who sells the most—but about who sells best, to whom, and at what margin. Indonesia appears to be rewriting that playbook, and the rest of the world is watching closely. ——– Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3105/whats-in-your-beer-carlsbergs-new-brew-puts-regenerative-farming-in-the-spotlight.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3105/whats-in-your-beer-carlsbergs-new-brew-puts-regenerative-farming-in-the-spotlight.html Mon, 14 Jul 2025 11:48:46 +0530 In an exclusive interview with AgroSpectrum & NUFFOODS Spectrum, Carlsberg Denmark’s Senior Sustainability Manager, Stig Schneider Johnsen, shared how the company is leading the brewing industry’s shift toward regenerative agriculture by committing to 100 per cent regeneratively grown barley malt by 2040. With raw materials accounting for nearly a quarter of Carlsberg’s total emissions, the move is a strategic step to cut CO₂ output and enhance soil health. The company’s regenerative framework—built around crop rotation, soil cover, low inputs, and biodiversity—was developed with agricultural advisors and industry collaborations. By working closely with farmers and maltsters, Carlsberg scaled up regenerative barley production to 14,800 tonnes. The pilot beer Grobund received a strong consumer response, reinforcing the brand’s sustainability-driven innovation. What inspired Carlsberg to take this step toward using 100 per cent regeneratively grown barley malt? Our decision to brew a beer using 100 per cent regeneratively grown barley malt was driven by the urgent need to reduce agricultural emissions and improve soil health—two critical levers in our broader climate strategy. Approximately 24 per cent of our total value chain CO₂ emissions on the Group level stem from raw materials, with malt accounting for about half of that. Transitioning to regenerative practices is, therefore, a strategic imperative to decrease our footprint and support biodiversity. What does regenerative agriculture mean within Carlsberg’s strategy, and how was your definition developed? Regenerative agriculture is central to our ambition of sourcing 100 per cent of our raw materials from regenerative practices by 2040. Recognising the absence of a universal definition, we developed our framework in collaboration with agricultural advisors and inspirations from SAI Platform’s “Regenerating Together” working group. Our definition is grounded in these core principles: crop rotation, year-round soil cover, minimal soil disturbance, minimal input use, and a strict ban on insecticides. These principles are designed to enhance soil health, reduce emissions, and promote biodiversity. We also encourage voluntary practices such as agroforestry, organic matter addition, and precision farming to further strengthen outcomes. What were the key challenges in scaling from 500 to 14,800 tonnes of regenerative barley malt, and how were they addressed? Scaling regenerative barley production from 500 to 14,800 tonnes—equivalent to approximately 100 million liters of beer—required close collaboration across our value chain and with our supply chain partners. Interestingly, the transition has been less challenging than one might expect. The Danish agricultural sector has responded swiftly and constructively to our demand for regeneratively grown barley and found around 50 new farmers who live up to our principles. What role do maltsters like Fuglsang and Viking Malt play in this transformation? Our partners have been agile in supporting our transition to regenerative barley. They responded quickly to our ambitions, enabling us to scale up supply efficiently and without delay. Their ability to deliver high-quality regenerative malt at short notice has been crucial to the success of this initiative. How have consumers responded to Grobund, and is sustainability influencing preferences or loyalty? The initial response to Grobund has been very positive. Launched at Folkemødet and available exclusively at the Home of Carlsberg, the beer has sparked meaningful conversations about the future of agriculture and climate action. While Grobund was produced in limited quantities, it serves as a symbol of what is possible. We are indeed observing a growing segment of consumers who prioritise sustainability in their purchasing decisions, and initiatives like this help reinforce brand trust and loyalty among consumers. What are the next milestones on Carlsberg’s path to 100 per cent regenerative grain by 2040? Looking ahead, our key milestones include reaching 30 per cent regenerative raw material sourcing globally by 2030. We are calling for a common definition of regenerative practices and are also engaging in research to better quantify the environmental benefits of regenerative agriculture, including CO₂ reduction, biodiversity gains, and soil carbon sequestration. Continued collaboration with farmers, suppliers, and policymakers will be essential to scale these practices and ensure their long-term viability. ————- Shraddha Warde (shraddha.warde@mmactiv.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3104/building-resilient-harvests-gates-foundation-pushes-for-climate-smart-food-systems-in-apac.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3104/building-resilient-harvests-gates-foundation-pushes-for-climate-smart-food-systems-in-apac.html Mon, 14 Jul 2025 11:40:31 +0530 In an exclusive interview with AgroSpectrum, Dr. Ana Maria Loboguerrero, Director for Adaptive and Equitable Food Systems at the Gates Foundation, outlines the unique challenges and opportunities facing food systems in APAC. She emphasizes the need for holistic solutions that integrate climate adaptation, gender equity, and nutrition. Loboguerrero highlights the role of digital innovations—from India’s livestock traceability to AI-based weather forecasts—in boosting resilience. She also stresses the importance of regional cooperation and increased adaptation finance for smallholder farmers. Looking ahead, she remains optimistic about APAC’s potential to lead the world in building inclusive, climate-smart food systems. What makes the APAC region unique when it comes to building adaptive and equitable food systems?In APAC—and specifically South Asia—over 80 percent of households rely on smallholder or subsistence farming to make a living. Most of these farms are under two hectares, meaning simply improving productivity does not always translate into more income, keeping many farmers in poverty. This challenge is further exacerbated by climate change. According to the 2024 Asia-Pacific Climate Report, South Asia will require between $102 billion and $431 billion annually for climate adaptation— far more than the $34 billion of adaptation finance mobilized in the region in 2021-2022. Gender inequality adds another layer to the challenge. While women represent the majority of the agriculture labor force—like in India where women represent 67 per cent of workers in agrifood systems— they are often left out of decision-making and lack access to resources. This is why efforts in APAC demand holistic, integrated interventions across nutrition, climate resilience, and women’s access to resources.  How are global and regional trade dynamics affecting local food system equity in APAC?Today, South Asia primarily exports staple crops and processed products around the world—including to the Middle East and North America—missing opportunities to build resilient local ecosystems through collaboration with neighboring countries. Meanwhile, variations in regulations and logistics between countries in South Asia limit progress, meaning intraregional trade remains underdeveloped and fragmented. Harmonizing trade can help to reduce food prices and buffer against climate shocks, while stimulating crop diversification and helping prepare unified response systems for the climate-driven spread of pests.   What promising technologies or digital tools are helping make APAC food systems more adaptive and inclusive?Digital tools and technologies play a key role in helping smallholder farmers reduce food loss and waste, prepare for climate stressors, and connect to the supply chain. Across food systems, we are seeing the adoption of these technologies increase through rural outreach, training and financial services offerings. For example, the Indian National Digital Livestock Mission now tags over 95 per cent of the country’s ~303 million cows with unique IDs—including vaccination records, parentage, and milk yield metrics—unlocking traceability from farm to processor. By reducing losses and helping to maintain quality, this digital infrastructure improves smallholder incomes and allows them to make the most of premium export markets. Meanwhile, the Agriculture Innovation Mechanism for Scale (AIM for Scale), launched in 2024, is deploying AI-based weather forecasting across Asia. Early pilots in India show reduced farmer debt and savings increases of up to 10 percent. How well are national policies in APAC addressing the dual goals of climate adaptation and food equity? Where are the gaps?National policies across South Asia are helping drive the region’s shift toward food self-sufficiency. In India, for example, the government’s National Mission on Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA) is promoting climate-resilient farming, water-use efficiency, and improved soil health. Over the years to come, it will be important to continue strengthening nutrition security across the region. By making nutritious diets more affordable and accessible for everyone, South Asia can further its commitments to food system transformation and healthy lives for all. Meanwhile, across South Asia and beyond, climate-driven extremes continue to devastate yields, further straining food systems, exacerbated by growing populations and water shortages. National adaptation strategies are emerging, however financing is lacking: COP29 discussions noted that less than 1 per cent of public climate finance targets smallholder agriculture, despite these farmers producing up to 80 per cent of the region’s food. Moreover, gender considerations are still largely siloed, rather than woven into core agricultural and climate policies. How can APAC countries collaborate better across borders to build resilient regional food systems?Climate resilience across South Asia depends on cross-border alignment in regulatory standards, joint disease and pest surveillance, synchronized early warning systems, and shared R&D investments in crop, livestock, and climate innovations. The 2024 Asia-Pacific UN meeting highlighted the need for such alignment, urging institutional support for agriculture, fisheries, and nature-based food systems to build resilience. Establishing regional centers to coordinate responses to these challenges is essential to make regional trade more efficient while reducing production and transaction risk and increasing profit. What does a truly adaptive and equitable food system look like in APAC by 2035 or 2050?Such a system would deliver both food and nutrition security, while being climate shock-resilient—able to respond to and bounce back from floods, heatwaves, or disease outbreaks without raising food prices or impacting farmer livelihoods. It would embed climate-smart technologies at scale and center on inclusivity, integrating marginalized groups, including women and smallholders, into governance and markets. By 2050, many APAC low- and middle-income countries would have transitioned towards high-income economies, leveraging inclusive, nutritious and resilient food systems as engines of growth. What are three policy or investment priorities you believe must be urgently addressed to get there?First, the region must dramatically increase adaptation finance directed to smallholder farmers. Second, policymakers should mandate systems-based planning, wherein nutrition, gender equity, and climate resilience are seen through a “growth lens” as core elements of food system transformation. Third, cooperation between countries—across agricultural research, emergency response, and trade policy—must be institutionalized through stable regional frameworks to enable long-term investments in shared climate-resilience infrastructure. What gives you hope or optimism about the future of food systems in APAC?Digital tools and technologies are now underpinning agricultural modernization—from livestock traceability to AI-enhanced weather services—demonstrating that these innovations can meaningfully improve the lives and livelihoods of smallholder farmers in South Asia. Diet diversification is also increasing: pulses, oilseeds, fruits, vegetables, and aquaculture sectors are now outstripping the growth rate of staple crops in South Asia. It’s also exciting to see multilateral forums—like the upcoming COP30 in Belém —prioritize climate-resilient food systems at the center of SDG discussions. Despite formidable challenges, the convergence of technology, policy momentum, regional engagement, and innovation offers a credible path toward fair, and nutritious climate-smart food systems. ————- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3089/the-sandbelt-revolution-how-heat-struck-nations-are-growing-their-way-out.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3089/the-sandbelt-revolution-how-heat-struck-nations-are-growing-their-way-out.html Tue, 08 Jul 2025 18:26:27 +0530 Image Source: Canva Once dismissed as fantasy, desert farming is fast becoming a frontier solution to food insecurity in a climate-stressed world. Across the UAE, Israel, and India, arid lands are being transformed by AI, desalination, and solar-powered greenhouses into hubs of high-yield, water-efficient agriculture. However beneath this promise lies a critical dilemma: Can these energy- and input-intensive systems remain sustainable under mounting climate and ecological pressures? The success of desert farming hinges not just on innovation, but on integrating traditional knowledge, conserving biodiversity, and balancing output with long-term resilience. As food geopolitics heat up, the desert may yet hold the key—if we learn to grow not just smarter, but wiser. Not long ago, the thought of harvesting tomatoes in the Negev or growing lettuce under the blazing skies of Rajasthan would’ve been dismissed as desert mirage. But that mirage is hardening into reality. From the sun-scorched dunes of the UAE to the saline plains of western India, agriculture is being reimagined without soil, without rain, and increasingly—without limits. Armed with solar panels, desalination plants, climate-controlled greenhouses, and AI-run irrigation grids, arid nations are flipping the script on food production. Deserts—once symbols of lifelessness—are now the proving grounds for the world’s most cutting-edge agricultural innovations. And behind the glistening greenhouses and vertical farms lies a deeper narrative: one of food sovereignty, climate resilience, and a reshuffling of global power in an era where who grows food, where, and how could decide the next geopolitical fault lines. The Israel-UAE-India Agri-Tech Axis At the heart of this transformation is a three-way collaboration that spans borders, ideologies, and ecosystems. Israel, long celebrated for turning its arid lands into citrus orchards and tomato farms through drip irrigation, now exports entire systems of desert-ready greenhouses. The UAE, seeking to reduce its 90 per cent dependence on imported food, has gone all-in on high-tech agronomy. India, with over 68 million hectares of arid and semi-arid land, is the newest and perhaps most consequential member of this axis. The pace of cooperation has been startling. In the past two years alone, Indo-Israeli Centres of Excellence for desert horticulture have expanded across Rajasthan and Gujarat. Israeli drip systems are now being paired with Indian solar panels in protected greenhouses spanning Bikaner to Bhuj. The UAE’s AgriTech Park in Al Ain, backed by sovereign wealth, is exporting vertical farm modules to Rajasthan, while India’s EXIM Bank facilitates tech financing under the trilateral I2U2 initiative. It’s a mutually reinforcing engine: Tech from Israel, capital from the Gulf, terrain and markets from India. Together, they’re building what the world lacks—scalable, sovereign, climate-resilient agriculture in water-stressed regions. The Thar Test: Can Desert Agriculture Future-Proof India’s Food Security? India’s deserts are often a geopolitical afterthought in discussions on food systems transformation. Yet, they may soon become the centrepiece of the country’s climate-adaptive agricultural strategy. With over 68 million hectares—or nearly 20 per cent of India’s total landmass—classified as arid and semi-arid, regions like western Rajasthan, northern Gujarat, southern Haryana, parts of Maharashtra, and the Deccan fringes represent a vast, untapped opportunity for resilient, high-tech farming. Adding another layer to India’s arid strategy is the introduction of date palm cultivation. Traditionally a Gulf crop, date palm plantations have expanded rapidly in Jaisalmer and Barmer, with the support of the Rajasthan Horticulture Development Mission and Israeli agronomists. The Department of Horticulture reports a fourfold increase in plantation area between 2017 and 2024, from 150 hectares to over 600 hectares. Preliminary harvests indicate an average yield of 8–10 tonnes per hectare, with premium Ajwa and Barhee varieties fetching Rs 250–300 per kg in urban and export markets. From Mirage to Market: The Real Economics of Farming in the Desert Make no mistake—desert farming doesn’t come cheap. Climate-controlled greenhouses, desalination units, and smart irrigation systems require substantial capital investment. However, like most frontier technologies—solar energy, electric vehicles, even early mobile telephony—the economics shift as scale and innovation converge. That convergence is happening fast. Solar energy now accounts for over 90 per cent of power in several Gulf-based agri-tech farms, slashing long-term operating costs. Meanwhile, the cost of desalinated water in the Gulf has dropped from $5.00 to below $1.20 per cubic metre over the past decade, driven by hybrid solar-thermal systems and energy recovery innovations. On the efficiency front, AI-based climate controls are cutting water and nutrient waste by up to 40 per cent, according to field trials by the International Center for Biosaline Agriculture. In response, Gulf nations are now establishing agricultural free zones as well as controlled-environment export hubs designed to grow high-value crops like cherry tomatoes, edible herbs, and leafy greens. These are already being air-freighted to premium markets in Europe and Asia, where they fetch higher prices due to freshness, low pesticide load, and guaranteed traceability. In short, desert farming is evolving from proof-of-concept to proof-of-profit. For countries that can align technology, policy, and export infrastructure, it offers not just food security—but also a competitive edge in the emerging climate economy. The Desert Farming Dilemma Desert farming is rapidly gaining traction as a symbol of agricultural innovation in a climate-stressed world. From hydroponic towers in the UAE to polyhouses in Rajasthan, barren landscapes are being transformed into productive food zones. But behind this promise lies a deeper concern: the sustainability of these systems. Heavy reliance on desalinated water, synthetic inputs, and energy-intensive infrastructure can degrade soil health, intensify pest resistance, and threaten long-term land productivity. As highlighted by the FAO's Investment Days and research from ICBA, the key to sustainable desert agriculture lies not in scaling inputs but in deploying smarter ones—through precision agriculture, AI-based systems, nanotechnology, and innovations like liquid natural clay that can retain moisture and nutrients in sandy soils. These advancements, while transformative, must also be balanced with traditional knowledge—from khettara water tunnels in Morocco to taanka systems in India—that have enabled desert communities to survive for centuries. Yet, desert farming faces its biggest challenge from climate change itself. Rising temperatures, erratic rainfall, and creeping salinization threaten to make even engineered systems unsustainable. The UNCCD warns that by 2030, desertification could displace 135 million people, making the case for sustainable intensification—growing more with less—urgent. While projects like the Sahara Forest Project in Jordan showcase integrated solutions that combine food, freshwater, and reforestation, large-scale transformation of desert land poses risks to biodiversity and fragile ecosystems. Ultimately, desert agriculture must evolve from a narrow focus on yield to a broader ethic of ecological balance. Managed responsibly, it can enhance food security and restore degraded lands. Mismanaged, it risks becoming a high-tech mirage—promising abundance but accelerating collapse. The question is no longer whether we can grow food in deserts, but whether we can do so without compromising the resilience of the very systems we depend on. ---------------- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3064/rethinking-risk-professor-chen-on-the-urgent-need-to-reinvent-food-safety-for-a-fragile-fast-changing-food-system.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3064/rethinking-risk-professor-chen-on-the-urgent-need-to-reinvent-food-safety-for-a-fragile-fast-changing-food-system.html Thu, 26 Jun 2025 17:57:07 +0530 Recognized as one of Asia’s foremost authorities in food innovation, Professor William Chen leads pivotal national efforts including the Future Ready Food Safety Hub (FRESH) and the Singapore Agri-food Innovation Lab (SAIL), while holding the Michael Fam Endowed Professorship at NTU. With a career spanning microbiology, sustainability, and food tech, he is a key architect of green food technologies and urban food solutions. A vocal proponent of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs), Professor Chen champions next-gen food safety assessments that account for digestion, exposure, and data-driven risk. In this wide-ranging interview, he reflects on how the Asia-Pacific region is confronting food system fragility driven by climate shocks, geopolitical tensions, and a rapidly evolving innovation landscape. He argues that regulatory science must not only keep pace with innovation, but also adapt to its growing complexity to ensure safety, security, and sustainability. The discussion draws on insights from the recent WHO-NTU Joint Workshop, spotlighting global collaborations to shape resilient, harmonized food safety frameworks for the future. Professor Chen, you've been recognized globally for pioneering innovations in sustainable food systems. From your perspective, how has food safety risk assessment evolved in the Asia-Pacific (APAC) region over the last decade?My sense is that in general food tech innovations are always moving faster than food safety risk assessment. This is even more obvious when countries around the world including the Asia-Pacific are feeling the urgent need to tackle the increasingly fragile food supply chain. The fragility is a combined result of- The impact of extremely weather conditions on the farming yield (both crops and livestock); the disruption of supply chain by the CoVID-19 pandemic; the rising geopolitical tensions. Some areas of this global push for greater farming yield and alternative food sources may include deforestation for new farmland, increasing use of fertilisers and pesticides and food circular economy through upcycling and reduction of food waste/side-streams. Food safety risk assessment needs to be enhanced for the push for higher level of food supply. For example, the emergence of new microbes from the deforestation and extreme weather conditions may affect livestock farming (avian flu is a typical example) and proper detection/mitigation measures need to be developed. Likewise, in creating food circular economy through valorization of food processing side-streams, one should bear in mind that hazard substances need to be assessed for their safety risk (for example, residual mycotoxin and pesticides on the husk of grain). One emerging effort across the world is the urban food solutions (plant and fungi based protein, meat grown in bioreactors, and microbial proteins). These novel foods hold great promise to complement foods from the traditional sources but proper food safety risk assessment framework needs to be established. This is because while the foods produced in the urban setting may be resilient to changing weather conditions and free of pesticides/antibiotics, the production systems may need to be monitored for new types of contaminants (microbials or toxins). Given the pace of innovation in urban proteins and alternative foods, what will it take to build globally harmonized food safety standards—and how can public-private partnerships and international cooperation, like the WHO-NTU initiative, bridge the gap between proprietary innovation and public health?My sense is that public private partnership is extremely important to ensure a synergistic cooperation for a harmonized food safety standards to tackle the new challenges in the food system. Many countries are capable of developing new food safety standards of relevance to their respective conditions, and adopted by their own regulatory agencies. While their cross-border recognition and adoption may be challenging, the engagement of international organizations such as the World Health Organization would help to facilitate the process and also standardize the practices. To develop food safety standards for the changing food systems to include the novel foods, industry participation in data sharing is critical but challenging. One example is the formulation of culture medium ingredients for urban protein development. Many innovators and startups have developed creative ways to enhance the yield while reducing the operation cost of these urban foods, but these innovations may be considered proprietary thus not for sharing. This is a challenge as the replacement ingredients may have hazardous substances derived from non-food applications or from side-streams upcycling, and these replacement substances may also alter the properties of the urban food products. Another area of data sharing is around the food supply chain which can be facilitated by Artificial Intelligence. The recently concluded WHO-NTU Joint Workshop in Singapore has provided helpful insights on ways forward to overcome these challenges. Part of the Joint Workshop is to present the progress of the WHO-NTU Joint Action Plan to develop food relevant NAMs for future food safety risk assessment. The Joint Action Plan includes a number of NAMs areas discussed herein such as mixture and digestion aspect of foods, and AI integration. In the context of this new way of partnership, the Future Ready Food Safety Hub (FRESH) which is part of Singapore government’s national food initiative (Singapore Food Agency, A*STAR and NTU Singapore) to enhance the overall food security would be the technology developer for food relevant NAMs, and of particular interest the bioreactor systems for urban food production which allow us to have first-hand data from varying parameters and their impact on the food safety risk assessment framework. Hosted at NTU Singapore, the NAMs developed from FRESH would then be validated with industry partners and Singapore Food Agency therefore achieving the objective of public private partnership. WHO would be the global leader to facilitate the exchange of NAMs across different countries for their standardization and adoption. You’ve been a strong advocate of green food innovations. How do sustainability goals intersect with food safety risk management, especially with the rise of alternative proteins and circular food systems?As I’ve noted, with growing pressure to boost food supply amid climate disruptions, food safety risk assessment must keep pace. New microbial threats—driven by deforestation and extreme weather—are already affecting livestock, with avian flu being a key example. The shift toward a circular food economy is critical, but upcycled side-streams may carry residual mycotoxins or pesticides. These risks must be assessed before reintroducing them into the food chain. Urban food solutions—like fungi-based proteins, cultivated meat, and microbial alternatives—are promising, climate-resilient, and produced without pesticides or antibiotics. But clean production doesn’t guarantee safety. Novel contaminants unique to these systems must be considered. This calls for next-generation food safety frameworks—designed specifically for new food technologies, not adapted from legacy models. We need to assess not just inputs, but how these foods behave through processing, digestion, and consumption. So far, the safety assessment of these novel urban foods has been focused on hazard identification and limited to their production and processing, but not on the foods per se. Bearing in mind that hazard does not equal risk, we now need to move to the next stage which is the hazard characterization . One emerging development is ensure proper transition of the New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) into the food safety risk assessment. NAMs have been developed as an alternative to animal-testing in the cosmetics and environmental pollutants. In transitioning NAMs into the space of food safety risk assessment, careful calibrations are needed as foods are mostly not in one ingredient and also they go through our digestive system. One example to illustrate the importance of digestion is that eggs and chicken meat display varying levels of potential allergenicity (one form of food toxicity) before consumption. However, the majority of consumers can safely consume eggs and chicken meat without developing any allergy reactions. Conversely, foods including novel foods which do not show any potential allergenicity before consumption may have a different profile after consumption. As such, we are dealing with a far more complex situation compared to NAMs-based risk assessment of single substances in the cosmetics and pollutants. Lastly, what does the “green revolution” in food systems mean to you, and what’s the next frontier in that journey?Green Revolution is not limited to environment but rather should be seen as an integrated platform extending from environmental sustainability to consumers well-being. The current food system needs to be enhanced, to reduce food loss and food waste while improving the nutrition value for the consumers. The linear correlation between the quantity of food to be produced and the growing world population is overly simplistic. Food loss and food waste take up a significant portion (30 – 50 per cent) of the foods produced and are a waste of resources in producing foods and the disposal of these materials.The Green Revolution is not just about retrieving nutrients from these waste materials, but more importantly reduce them at the source. The food circular economy model is a sustainable solution to the current food system if proper food safety standards can be developed alongside the food tech innovations. An important aspect of an efficient food circular economy is to connect the dots among different parts of the food system with data integration, from production to processing to consumption. The big data for the food circular economy should include basic nutrition requirements for the world population, changing consumers demand and the volume of farm produce needed. The data integration would also lead to reduced food loss and food waste generation, creating a green and sustainable future food system and sustainable environment for the consumers. ------------------- Suchetana Choudhury (suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3048/the-great-agri-reset-climate-smart-tech-driven-farmer-first.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3048/the-great-agri-reset-climate-smart-tech-driven-farmer-first.html Wed, 25 Jun 2025 11:05:31 +0530 India’s farmlands are undergoing a quiet revolution—powered by tech, backed by policy, and driven by purpose. With agriculture employing 45 per cent of the workforce and contributing 18 per cent to GDP, the rise of agritech could unlock a $95 billion GDP boost through smarter yields, lower costs, and climate resilience. From drone-powered soil checks to AI-driven advisories, platforms like AgriStack and eNAM are turning farming into a precision, data-led industry. Over $2.6 billion in startup funding since FY22 signals that agritech isn’t just innovation—it’s India’s next growth engine. With the right investments and inclusive digital tools, India can lead the world in climate-smart, tech-forward farming. India’s rich agro-ecological diversity has long established it as a global agricultural leader. Agriculture continues to be a vital pillar of the Indian economy, contributing nearly 18 per cent to GDP and employing about 45 per cent of the country’s workforce, according to Redseer Strategy Consultants. Even during the upheaval of the COVID-19 pandemic, agriculture stood out as a pillar of stability and resilience. This was largely enabled by targeted government interventions, including strong support for farmer producer organisations (FPOs), promotion of crop diversification, improvements in agricultural productivity, encouragement of mechanisation, and enhanced financial support mechanisms. A key milestone in this effort was the launch of the Rs 1 lakh crore Agriculture Infrastructure Fund, designed to strengthen rural infrastructure, improve post-harvest logistics, and build a more resilient agri-economy. Despite its agricultural output, India ranks only eighth globally in agricultural exports, holding a 2.33 per cent share of the global market. However, with the rise of agritech innovations, the sector is on the brink of a major shift.  A recent Ernst & Young report estimates that India’s agritech market holds a $24 billion opportunity, yet current penetration remains low at just 1.5 per cent. If fully developed, the agritech ecosystem could increase farmers’ incomes by 25 per cent to 35 per cent, contributing up to $95 billion to GDP through enhanced productivity, reduced input costs, improved market access, and diversified income streams. In response, the integration of climate-resilient practices with agricultural innovation has emerged as a critical strategy to safeguard both food and energy security. India’s agricultural future hinges on its ability to adapt and innovate. By merging traditional knowledge with cutting-edge technologies and fostering an ecosystem that supports resilience, India can not only protect its farmers but also lead the way in sustainable, climate-smart agriculture. With the right investments and policies, the country can build a farming system that is productive, equitable, and climate-ready, securing food and fuel for generations to come. India’s agritech sector is undergoing a seismic shift. Powered by digital innovation and growing investor interest, it’s reshaping the future of farming—from the ground up. Since FY22, the sector has pulled in over $2.6 billion across 340 deals, with nearly 70 per cent of funding flowing into B2B/B2C market linkages and full-stack platforms. The message from investors is clear: Agritech is no longer a niche—it’s a commercial opportunity with national impact. India is making significant strides in reshaping its agricultural landscape by integrating digital innovation and sustainability into the heart of farming. Initiatives like the Digital Agriculture Mission, with an allocation of Rs 2817 crore, are equipping farmers with real-time data and decision-making tools that improve productivity and resource efficiency. The Centre has allocated Rs 1,261 crore for the Namo Drone Didi scheme for 2023-26, bringing a much-needed gender lens to agriculture by empowering women through self-help groups, turning them into active participants and entrepreneurs in the supply chain. The National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA) further strengthens the ecosystem by promoting environmentally friendly farming practices. To bolster domestic manufacturing of drones and related components, the government is planning the PLI Scheme 2.0 worth Rs 1000 crore. Together, these initiatives are laying the foundation for a more resilient and inclusive agricultural sector—one that is better equipped to tackle both current pressures and future demands. Centralised digital platforms can help streamline stakeholder coordination and enhance service delivery. At the same time, innovative financing models, such as micro-credit schemes and blended finance, are essential to unlock investments in agri-tech solutions. Just as crucial is the need for training and capacity building, ensuring that farmers not only have access to technology but also the confidence and skills to use it effectively. Agri-tech holds the key to revitalising Indian agriculture, offering solutions that increase yields, reduce environmental impact, and improve livelihoods, especially in the face of mounting climate risks. By embracing innovation at scale, India can make meaningful progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and its national commitments under global climate agreements. With the right vision and collective effort, India can not only transform its agricultural sector but also emerge as a global leader in climate-smart farming, demonstrating how technology and inclusive growth can shape a sustainable future. Where Technology Meets the TillerA quiet revolution is reshaping India’s farmlands — and technology is leading the charge. Across the country, agritech startups are blooming, tackling age-old farming challenges with modern solutions. Driving this growth is strong government support. Initiatives like Startup India have created a fertile environment for innovation, giving entrepreneurs the tools and confidence to break new ground in the agritech space. Agritech is doing more than just streamlining farm operations — it's reshaping the entire agricultural value chain. By harnessing tools like AI, machine learning, data analytics, and SaaS platforms, farmers are making better decisions faster. These technologies enable smarter resource use, reduce operational costs, and help maximise yields — all while preparing farms to withstand climate challenges. In short, agritech is turning agriculture into a data-driven, climate-smart industry — and the benefits are just beginning to unfold. Private equity and venture capital firms are pouring capital into the sector, providing startups with the resources they need to refine their operations, boost research and development, and expand into new markets. The outcome: A fresh wave of tech-powered agriculture that’s smarter, more sustainable, and perfectly tuned to the needs of today’s farmers. Policy Meets Precision: India’s AgriTech LeapThe fusion of technology and agriculture is opening up powerful new pathways to tackle the growing risks posed by climate change. In India, the government is playing a proactive role in driving this transformation. A cornerstone of this effort is the Agri-Stack — a digital infrastructure designed to unify agricultural services and data on a single platform. This initiative makes it easier for farmers to access everything from advisories and subsidies to credit and insurance, while also streamlining coordination across the entire agricultural value chain. By improving access to cutting-edge technologies and offering financial and policy support, India is steadily building an agri-tech ecosystem that empowers farmers to boost productivity while embracing sustainable practices. Among the most impactful steps taken by the Indian government to modernise agriculture are initiatives like the Agricultural Accelerator Fund and the creation of Digital Public Infrastructure for Agriculture. These forward-looking programmes are designed to energise India’s fast-growing AgriTech ecosystem and promote innovation that can withstand future disruptions and challenges. Among the most groundbreaking initiatives by the Indian government in recent years is AgriStack, formally called the India Digital Ecosystem of Agriculture (IDEA). This bold vision seeks to weave together the country’s vast agricultural data into a single, powerful platform, anchored by each farmer’s land records. In a nation where most farmers cultivate small plots with limited resources and little exposure to cutting-edge technology, AgriStack holds the promise of being a true game-changer. This ecosystem integrates an impressive array of digital innovations, transforming the way decisions are made on the ground:First, Drone-powered soil and crop assessments that provide precise insights to optimise pesticide use and promote eco-friendly farming. Second, tailored recommendations crafted for every unique plot of land—offering advice on the best seeds to sow, optimal farming techniques, and smart soil management practicesThird, Instant, real-time updates on weather, crop insurance options, market trends, and government programs, all designed to reduce risks and improve farmers’ livelihoods. By delivering these actionable insights straight to farmers’ fingertips, AgriStack has the potential to revolutionise agriculture across India, empowering millions to make informed, timely decisions that enhance both productivity and resilience. A key pillar of India’s AgriTech transformation is the National Agriculture Market (eNAM)—a comprehensive electronic trading platform that seamlessly integrates existing Agriculture Produce Market Committee (APMC) mandis across the country. By bridging the information gap between buyers and sellers, eNAM introduces much-needed transparency and efficiency into agricultural markets. This digital marketplace unifies national trade, enabling farmers to access fair prices in real time based on actual supply and demand. The outcome? Farmers gain stronger bargaining power, markets operate more smoothly, and consumers benefit from access to high-quality produce. In the 2022-23 Union Budget, the government launched the Agriculture Accelerator Fund, a visionary initiative aimed at energising rural entrepreneurs and startups driving innovation in agriculture. This fund supports the development of affordable, technology-based solutions tailored to overcome persistent challenges faced by farmers. By empowering young “Agri-preneurs” with funding and resources, the initiative is poised to boost productivity and foster a dynamic AgriTech ecosystem nationwide. Supporting these efforts is the plan to establish a Digital Public Infrastructure for Agriculture—an open-source, interoperable platform designed around six farmer-focused services. These services include crop planning, health management, easier access to inputs, credit and insurance support, market insights, and the promotion of AgriTech startups. A shining example of this vision is the government’s Digital Soil Health Card initiative. By analysing soil quality and composition, the programme promotes precision farming tailored to local conditions. The revamped Soil Health Card portal, accessible via web and mobile app, provides farmers with easy-to-understand reports—complete with emoticons indicating soil health—in 22 languages and five dialects, ensuring broad accessibility and inclusivity. At the same time, the government is turbocharging India’s AgriTech scene by actively backing agri-incubators and start-ups. Programmes like RKVY-RAFTAR and the Agri-Sure Fund are providing crucial funding, expert guidance, and resources to nurture promising early-stage ventures and build a thriving innovation ecosystem. This support is fuelling breakthroughs in precision farming and cutting-edge technologies that boost both productivity and climate resilience. Initiatives such as the Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana are pushing efficient irrigation solutions to conserve water, while the use of drones and other smart tools highlights a bold commitment to sustainable, resource-savvy agriculture. Together, these efforts are reshaping Indian farming—making it smarter, greener, and ready to face the challenges of tomorrow. Invest Integrate Innovate To effectively drive agri-tech integration, several strategic actions are essential. First, modernising agri-incubators is crucial. This involves updating their infrastructure and programmes to align with rapidly evolving technologies and changing market demands. Second, establishing state-level, controlled testing grounds where innovators can pilot their technologies in real-world agricultural environments is necessary. These testing sites enable developers to rigorously evaluate the effectiveness and practicality of their solutions while ensuring compliance with regulatory standards. Third, the development of an integrated digital platform is key to creating a cohesive agri-tech ecosystem. For farmers, it would offer easy access to timely advisories, best practices for sustainable farming, and direct links to market opportunities, empowering them to make data-driven decisions that improve productivity and income. Fourth, significant investment must be channelled into precision farming and climate-smart technologies. These advanced tools and methods enhance farmers’ ability to respond to environmental challenges such as erratic weather, water scarcity, and soil degradation. Finally, deploying a diverse range of financial instruments is vital to accelerate the growth and adoption of promising agri-tech ventures. This includes fast-track credit facilities to provide startups with quick access to capital, risk-sharing frameworks that encourage investment by mitigating potential losses, and impact investments focused on generating social and environmental benefits alongside financial returns.By implementing these comprehensive measures, the integration of agri-tech can be significantly accelerated, fostering a more sustainable, productive, and resilient agricultural sector that benefits all stakeholders involved. India stands at the threshold of a new agricultural era—one where sustainable growth and climate resilience go hand in hand. By embracing agri-tech innovations, the country can make significant strides toward achieving global environmental goals, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and safeguarding farmers from climate uncertainties. ------- Suchetana Choudhury ( suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com ) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3047/blue-green-gold-why-seaweed-is-indias-next-big-bioeconomic-bet.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/3047/blue-green-gold-why-seaweed-is-indias-next-big-bioeconomic-bet.html Wed, 25 Jun 2025 11:01:01 +0530 India is poised to transform its vast coastline into a seaweed-powered blue economy, with the potential to scale a Rs 10,000 crore industry by 2030. Despite having the capacity to produce 9.7 million tonnes of seaweed annually, India currently harvests just 34,000 tonnes, hindered by fragmented policies, weak infrastructure, and poor market linkages. Startups, global corporations, and fisher communities alike are recognising seaweed’s value—from climate-smart agriculture and cosmetics to pharmaceuticals and bioplastics. Lakshadweep’s high-yield pilots and calls for state-specific policies, buy-back systems, and women-led cooperatives highlight a path forward. With the right incentives, legal clarity, and community-driven models, India can lead the global seaweed surge—balancing sustainability, livelihoods, and innovation. The Indian government is setting its sights on the country's vast maritime assets — an 8,118 km coastline and a sprawling Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of over two million square kilometres — to build a thriving, sustainable seaweed mariculture industry. As part of a strategic national framework, the initiative aims to unlock the untapped potential of seaweed farming to drive economic growth, boost food security, and support the achievement of several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Once a humble coastal resource, seaweed is fast becoming a star ingredient across India’s industrial playbook. Seaweed isn’t just sushi’s best friend—it’s quietly shaping industries all around us. Take alginate, for instance. Extracted from brown seaweeds plucked from the wild, this $ 213 million market plays a behind-the-scenes role in everything from creamy cosmetics to life-saving medical dressings and your favourite sauces. Then there’s agar, a $132 million powerhouse derived from red seaweeds. Not to forget carrageenan—a $ 240 million ingredient hiding in plain sight in ice cream, toothpaste, and dairy products. Sourced from red seaweeds like Irish Moss, it gives your food that smooth, satisfying texture. From your kitchen shelf to lab benches and beauty cabinets, seaweed is the ocean’s quiet achiever—thickening, stabilizing, and shaping the future of sustainable industry. “By 2030, India’s seaweed sector could easily be a Rs 10,000 crore industry—if we do it right. From food, pharma, cosmetics to bio-packaging and organic fertilizers, the applications are vast. We must develop our own MRV (Monitoring, Reporting, Verification) frameworks, and set up a Seaweed Carbon Credit Authority, maybe within the Blue Economy Cell. Let fishers get income not just from biomass, but also from “green value,” stated Vikas Motiram Koli, Voice for fisherfolk & blue economy entrepreneur. Household names like Nestlé, Britannia, Amul, Cipla, Zydus Cadila, Hindustan Unilever, The Body Shop, and Tata Chemicals are leveraging seaweed for everything from thickening agents to bioactives. Agri giants like Godrej Agrovet, UPL, and BASF India are tapping into its bio-stimulant potential, while a new wave of startups in packaging, biofuels, and regenerative farming are betting on seaweed as the next frontier. With health, sustainability, and innovation aligning, seaweed is no longer a niche input. It’s a movement. Vast Shores, Limited Yield, and a Market That Can’t WaitIn a move that could redefine India’s coastal economy, the central government has rolled out guidelines to regulate the import of live seaweed varieties with an agenda of sparking seaweed revolution by scaling up domestic cultivation and feeding a growing demand across industries. Despite having a coastline capable of producing a staggering 9.7 million tonnes of seaweed annually, India currently harvests just 34,000 tonnes—a fraction of its potential. By contrast, global seaweed production is cruising at over 35 million tonnes, valued at an estimated $16.5 billion each year. “Despite India’s vast coastline and growing interest in seaweed cultivation, domestic buyers continue to lean heavily on imports. Whether for food-grade applications, pharmaceuticals, or industrial uses, quality assurance is non-negotiable. Currently, Indian seaweed just isn’t making the cut’’, remarked Dr Johnson B, Sr. Scientist, ICAR-CMFRI. “Barriers? No standard pricing. No buy-back system. Limited processing infrastructure. Also too much red tape in permissions-we need clear, decentralized policies and seaweed “zones” similar to agri-export zones’’, added Koli. Unreliable gelling properties, especially in locally sourced agar derived from Gracilaria dura. While some Indian seaweed producers do price their product based on gel strength, variability in growing conditions, harvesting practices, and post-harvest handling leads to uneven quality. In contrast, imports from countries like the Philippines and Indonesia offer stability in both volume and performance. “Fixing the gaps isn’t just a supply chain challenge—it’s an opportunity to unlock the full value of India’s "blue-green" gold. While India possesses an extraordinary potential to emerge as a global leader in seaweed cultivation—with an estimated capacity exceeding one million tonnes—the sector languishes at a meagre 34,000 tonnes annually. This glaring underachievement stems from a set of challenges: the absence of reliable seed infrastructure, tenuous market linkages, insufficient technical literacy—particularly among coastal women—and the looming spectre of climate volatility. Addressing these systemic deficiencies requires more than perfunctory policy interventions; it necessitates a paradigm shift towards inclusive, community-driven models and sustained, holistic ecosystem development’’, said Neelkanth Mishra, CEO, Jaljeevika. A sleeping giant, poised for growth, India contributes less than 1 per cent to global seaweed production. Today, over 40,000 coastal farming families are engaged in seaweed cultivation, spread across states such as Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Odisha, Goa, and the island territories of Lakshadweep and the Andaman & Nicobar Islands. “There are central schemes like PMMSY, and CSIR, ICAR are pushing pilot projects. However, there’s no dedicated National Seaweed Mission yet with strong financial and technical incentives. We need state-specific seaweed policies—Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat must all localize support ensuring that these reach the actual harvesters, not just paper cooperatives’’, advocated Koli. Lakshadweep is beginning to emerge as a standout performer. With its calm lagoons and pristine coastal conditions, the islands offer ideal seasonal windows—up to seven months annually—for high-yield seaweed farming. While average dry yield across the country hovers around a 5X return on seed, certain pilot projects in Lakshadweep have recorded an impressive 15X output, attributed to optimal temperatures and low pollution levels. The industry has seen particular promise in the cultivation of Kappaphycus alvarezii, a commercially valuable red seaweed used extensively in food, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics. Farmers report earnings of Rs16 per kg for fresh seaweed, rising to Rs 70 per kg for dried, turning this once-overlooked marine crop into a source of livelihood security. Beyond economics, seaweed offers a triple win—absorbing carbon, restoring marine biodiversity, and supporting rural livelihoods. Globally, the seaweed market is projected to exceed $ 30 billion by 2030, and India stands at the edge of this wave. The question is no longer if India can lead in seaweed—but how fast it can catch up ! What lies ahead is a rare convergence of economic promise and ecological responsibility and it starts with the tide turning in places like Lakshadweep. Cultivate, Connect, Capitalize “We are demanding the creation of a Coastal Autonomous Body—a council acting as a bridge between the government and the grassroots, ensuring policies are practical, inclusive, and grounded in local realities. Additionally, clarity is urgently needed on insurance coverage, safety liabilities, and property rights farm plots in the sea. Without these protections, sustainable seaweed entrepreneurship cannot flourish’’, recommended Koli. To turn India into a seaweed powerhouse, the government needs to move fast, think big, and bring the right players to the table. Aligning cultivation with market demand makes the entire value chain more resilient and profitable. Next, capital must flow. Fiscal incentives—like tax breaks, subsidies, and low-interest loans—can unlock private investment in processing units and logistics infrastructure. These facilities should be close to farming hotspots to cut post-harvest losses and preserve product quality. A smart, data-led approach is crucial. An interactive portal with geotagged maps of potential and active seaweed sites can guide decision-making, track progress, and drive efficient resource allocation. Seed is the industry’s lifeline—and right now, it's unreliable. “As sea cage farming grows, so does the strain on marine ecosystems. That’s where Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture comes in—by co-cultivating seaweed with finfish and shellfish’’, mentioned Dr Johnson.” We not only reduce environmental impact but also boost biomass and income. Our trials in Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, and Andhra Pradesh have shown that seaweed isn’t just a buffer—it’s a game-changer for sustainable aquaculture and blue carbon gains,” he added, while discussing innovations in seaweed cultivation. India also needs to fix the policy grey zone around seaweed farming. Legal clarity on land use, pricing, and delivery terms will reduce disputes and build long-term trust. “Based on ground insights, five key pillars can scale seaweed as a women-led coastal enterprise: year-round seed access through decentralized nurseries; women-centric cooperatives for collective farming and value addition; fast-tracked permissions in climate-vulnerable areas; climate-resilient tools like floating dryers, mobile vans, and crop insurance; and strong market linkages with ethical buyers and traceable branding’’, added Mishra. ”With the right support, seaweed can become a lighthouse livelihood—women-led, community-driven, and aligned with both climate resilience and market potential ,’’ he concluded. India must establish rigorous product standards and certification systems across food, pharma, and cosmetics to boost global competitiveness. With the right moves, India can lead the next blue economy boom—anchored in seaweed, powered by policy, and driven by demand. In the words of Dr Megha Shinge, Advisor, Bhoomiputra Foundation,“By 2045, India will stand tall as a beacon of innovation and sustainability—a seaweed powerhouse powered by cutting-edge AI farms, coastal biorefineries across key states, and blue carbon markets that reward those who protect our planet. Women-led enterprises will drive new green industries, while export hubs will showcase India’s leadership in nutraceuticals, bioplastics, and clean fuels. This is not just progress—it’s a promise of a high-tech, inclusive, and climate-resilient future for all.” ------ Suchetana Choudhury ( suchetana.choudhuri@agrospectrumindia.com ) ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/2068/asia-pacific-crop-protection-chemicals-market-landscape.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/2068/asia-pacific-crop-protection-chemicals-market-landscape.html Fri, 19 Apr 2024 08:46:48 +0530 As of 2024, the Asia Pacific Crop Protection Chemicals Market is estimated to be worth $16.40 billion, and is projected to hit $20.75 billion by 2029, registering a 4.81% CAGR during the forecast period (2024-2029). A share of 16.3% by value of the global crop protection chemicals market was held by Asia-Pacific in 2022. The Asia-Pacific crop protection chemicals market was dominated by insecticides with 39.2% of the market share. In many countries across the region, rice is the most important crop. There are, however, various pests that have caused severe damage to the crop and, consequently, its yield. A further 34.6% of the value of the market was occupied by herbicides in 2022.  The region faces significant challenges due to horticultural crops, which impair agricultural productivity, due to a variety of weeds attacking staple crops and commercial crops. Fruit weeds cause substantial economic damage to the region because the fruit industry contributes significantly to its economic growth. There are two types of weeds most common to the regional fruit industry: Amaranthus retroflexus (Redroot pigweed) and Echinochloa crus-galli (Barnyard grass). By value, Asia-Pacific held 16.2% of the global insecticide market in 2022. Pesticides play a critical role in the region and are constantly evolving. As a result, it contributes greatly to the promotion of productive and sustainable agricultural practices across a wide range of countries. Asia-Pacific's pesticide market experienced consistent growth over the historical period, with a CAGR of 3.2%. In 2023-2027, Technavio estimates the global crop protection chemicals market will grow by $25.12 billion. It is estimated that the market will grow at a CAGR of 3.54% during the forecast period.  Herbicides such as glyphosates, Difenoconazole, Imidacloprids, and Bifenthrin are included in the crop protection chemicals market. Herbicides that are eco-friendly and decomposable are also developed with the help of biotechnology and microbiology.  A wide range of products are available to manage pests, diseases, weeds, and other threats to agricultural productivity in the Crop Protection Chemicals market. Insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, and bactericides are some of the chemicals in this category. Crop protection chemicals have a significant global market, with a number of companies operating in the sector.  Glyphosate, Difenoconazole, Imidacloprids, and Bifenthrin are a few of the products available in the Crop Protection Chemicals Market. APAC is experiencing significant growth, particularly in developing regions like APAC where the herbicide segment is thriving in cereals, oilseeds, rice cultivation, and other agricultural applications.  Invasive pests and emerging diseases pose significant challenges to the global agriculture industry, especially in APAC. A crucial role is played by crop protection chemicals in mitigating these threats. The safety and environmental impact of these solutions are ensured by stringent regulations and pesticide registration requirements. Food preferences for staple foods such as cereals and grains, fruits and vegetables, oilseeds and pulses, drive the demand for chemical solutions. The market for cereals, oilseeds, and rice cultivation is driven by environmental benefits and regulatory pressures. Herbicide formulation technologies, nanotechnology, and encapsulation techniques are employed by agribusinesses to produce effective, low-emission herbicides. Trends in the market are influenced by consumer preferences for fruits, vegetables, and staple foods, while invasive pests and emerging diseases require continuous innovation.  Biologicals, biopesticides, and herbicides, including synthetic chemicals such as glyphosates, Difenoconazole, imidacloprids, and bifenthrin, are essential for maintaining crop yields. As a result of pesticide residues, malnutrition, and food insecurity, a balanced approach is needed. In addition to offering environmental benefits, innovations in biotechnology and microbiology contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from tillage and herbicides. The market landscape continues to be dominated by small and medium-sized manufacturers and agricultural companies. There are a number of players in this field, including DuPont, Syngenta, BASF, Bayer, and Corteva. Increasing agricultural productivity, rising food demand, and the need for sustainable farming practices drive the market. These chemicals pose challenges to the market, however, due to concerns about the environment and the development of pest-resistance. In order to remain competitive, market participants must focus on regulatory frameworks and research and development efforts. Crop protection chemicals also benefit from biotechnology and other innovative approaches. As Asia-Pacific countries like China and India have a diverse agricultural landscape, some crops are more vulnerable to pests and diseases, leading to increased pesticide usage. Additionally, intensive farming practices and monocultures contribute to pest populations flourishing. A significant population means ensuring food security is a top priority, which leads to a greater need to protect crop yields and minimize pest losses, so pesticides become more prevalent. In addition to the adoption of modern agricultural practices and the expansion of cultivated lands, the market is also experiencing growth because of the expansion of agriculture. A total of 662.2 million ha will be cultivated in the region by 2022, up from 624.5 million ha in 2019. In conjunction with the growth of agricultural activities, the demand for efficient pest control solutions is also on the rise. In terms of value, Thailand is projected to exhibit the fastest growth rate in the region during the forecast period (2023-2029). Farmers in the country are expected to use more pesticides because of the rising threat of pests and increasing crop losses, which is contributing to this rapid growth. By reducing pesticide use and greenhouse gas emissions, biotechnology and microbiology are driving innovation. The use of formulation technologies, such as nanotechnology and encapsulation techniques, can improve efficacy and reduce regulatory burdens for small manufacturers and agribusiness companies. Farming practices are being revolutionized by precision agriculture technologies, including GPS-guided equipment, drones, and sensors.  Stringent regulations and pesticide registration requirements require a focus on reducing the environmental impact and meeting consumer preferences for staple foods and luxury crops. Biopesticides and biologicals, as well as synthetic solutions, are becoming increasingly important in this context. ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/1799/uae-strives-to-embark-on-sustainable-agriculture-resilient-food-systems-and-climate-action.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/1799/uae-strives-to-embark-on-sustainable-agriculture-resilient-food-systems-and-climate-action.html Tue, 06 Feb 2024 10:40:10 +0530 Three-year Sharm-El Sheikh Support Programme designed to ‘unlock’ financing and other means of support for farmers and small agri-businesses Food systems comprise one-third of global anthropogenic emissions, and close to 20% of the global food supply chain is in Asia, making it a critical region for climate-smart agricultural investments. The World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the Boston Consulting Group to encourage regenerative practices across the global agricultural supply chain. These initiatives and investments represent a long overdue step towards ‘greening’ food systems. Food security is extremely susceptible to the changing climate, and any effort to address the climate crisis must address the destructive impacts of global food systems.  The United Arab Emirates’s COP28 presidency, in partnership with the FAO, World Bank, International Fund for Agricultural Development, and the global partnership of international organizations, Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research, recently announced the three-year Sharm-El Sheikh Support Programme designed to ‘unlock’ financing and other means of support for farmers and small agri-businesses.  Nearly 159 parties signed the UAE Declaration on Sustainable Agriculture, Resilient Food Systems, and Climate Action. The signatories are responsible for 77% of global food production. While the declaration is not legally binding, it sends a strong signal by moving agriculture up the global climate agenda, a critical component previously lacking.  At least C$9.5 billion was mobilized during COP28 for food-system-related climate action. The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) also released its three-year roadmap to sustainable agriculture during the recent conference.  In addition, UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 28th Conference of Parties (COP28) in Dubai, food systems featured prominently discussed for the first time, with more than 130 countries making multiple commitments to integrate this overlooked sector into their climate action plans. Aside from state-level initiatives, the multistakeholder-led Action Agenda on Regenerative Landscapes was also launched by the COP28 presidency earlier in Dec 2023. The FAO’s first phase is a global roadmap, and the subsequent two phases, to be released at COPs 29 and 30 (happening in 2024 and 2025) will focus on regional and country-level plans to transform global agri-food systems. ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/1901/trends-and-opportunities-in-asia-pacific-agriculture-equipment-market-in-2024.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/1901/trends-and-opportunities-in-asia-pacific-agriculture-equipment-market-in-2024.html Thu, 11 Jan 2024 10:25:00 +0530 Surging Demand for Autonomous Equipment in Sustainable Agriculture The autonomous agriculture equipment market is growing as a result of the surge in sustainable agricultural operations. A focus on improving efficiency and reducing environmental impact has stimulated innovations across the industry as key players develop advanced autonomous machinery, such as multifunctional robots and driverless tractors. Asia Pacific is expected to grow the fastest during the forecast period China, Japan, India, South Korea and Australia leading the market followed by the rest of APAC. The key challenges are the implementation of standards and achieving interoperability. While machine learning, artificial intelligence, and data analytics present significant opportunities for optimizing farming operations, the report emphasizes other aspects as well. The Global Autonomous Farm Equipment Market is projected to exceed $192.1 Billion by 2032, growing at a CAGR of 10.2% from 2022 to 2032 as forecasted by the market analytical firm ‘Spherical Insights’. The Global Autonomous Farm Equipment Market Size was valued at $72.3 Billion in 2022. One of the key driving factors of the market is autonomous equipment being used in land cultivation processes like harvesting, seed sowing, fertilizing, and scarifying.   Asia-Pacific has witnessed significant growth in the Agriculture Technology as a Service market, offering significant opportunities for companies in the global ag sector. In the region, there are a number of rapidly growing economies that contribute to this growth. Furthermore, the market in Asia-Pacific is expected to grow rapidly over the next few years, mainly as a result of urbanization and government support for modern agricultural technologies. In addition to agricultural equipment, horticultural equipment, animal husbandry equipment, and forestry equipment are included in the autonomous farm equipment. Agricultural machinery is modeled and regulated autonomously within a unified framework in autonomous farming. The on-farm sensing and control power of automated farming equipment is used in these technologies for agriculture in order to achieve agronomy-based targets. With the advent of autonomous farm equipment, the agriculture sector is currently undergoing a transformation by revolutionizing traditional farming practices. The autonomous farm equipment uses advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), sensors, and GPS to operate independently with minimal human intervention. In addition to the growing global population, the need to increase agricultural productivity, and the shortage of skilled labor in the farming sector are some of the factors driving the market. Farmers are interested in investing in autonomous farm equipment because it offers several benefits, such as reduced labor costs, increased efficiency, and improved crop yields. Asia-Pacific Players In order to meet the evolving needs of farmers, companies are investing heavily in R&D to enhance the capabilities of autonomous farm equipment. Leading players operating in the Asia-Pacific Agriculture Technology include Topcon Corporation, Fujitsu Ltd, Microsoft Corporation, Accenture, Agco Corporation, Agrivi Ltd, Airbus SAS, AT&T, Ceres Imaging, CLAAS KGaA mbH, Deere & Company, Hexagon AB, IBM Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, Raven Industries (Acquired by CNH Industrial NV), Topcon Corporation, Trimble Inc. Asia-Pacific Agriculture Technology is broken down by technology, application, and type. A number of applications are included in the application segment, including yield mapping and monitoring, soil management, crop health management, navigation and positioning, and others. Geo-referenced data and other relevant information about crop productivity are collected as part of yield monitoring and mapping in order to reduce potential threats and boost economic opportunities. Precision agriculture services create maps of yields that help producers make better management decisions based on spatial variation. Key Global Players: In addition, global key players in the autonomous farm equipment market include AGCO Corporation, Verdant Robotics, John Deere, CNH Industrial N.V., Kubota Corporation, Bobcat,  Autonomous Solutions, Clearpath Robotics, Agrobot, New Holland, Case IH, John Deere, AGCO Corporation, Yanmar, ClaasKGaA GmbH, Iseki & Co., Kubota, Kinze Manufacturing, Energid, Deutz-Fahr and more. Topcon Corporation, headquartered in Japan, is a producer and supplier of eye care products, as well as positioning and smart infrastructure solutions. The company’s eye care products include three three-dimensional (3D) optical coherence tomography system, tonometer, specular microscope, ophthalmic digital image filing, auto refracto/kerato meter, vision tester, lensmeter/analyzer, chart projector, laser photocoagulator, and operation microscope. The Asia Pacific market for autonomous farm equipment is driven by the increasing adoption of precision agriculture practices and the rising demand for food and agricultural products in the region. China, India, Japan, and Australia are the key markets in Asia Pacific for autonomous farm equipment, focusing on crop cultivation and animal husbandry equipment. Due to government initiatives to promote sustainable agriculture practices and the increasing use of advanced farming technologies by farmers, China is one of the largest markets in the Asian Pacific region for autonomous farm equipment. The country has a large agricultural sector, and farmers will benefit from the adoption of autonomous farm equipment by increasing crop yields and reducing labor costs. The Asia-Pacific Agriculture Technology has strong potentials in China, Japan, India, South Korea, Indonesia, Thailand, Australia & New Zealand, markets. A variety of incentives, awards, and investments are being made by the Chinese government to promote technological advancements and innovation. China's government has pledged a substantial investment of $1.4 trillion over five years as part of its 'Made in China 2025' initiative. It will play a crucial role in the widespread deployment of 5G infrastructure, a development that will greatly influence the adoption of agriculture technology as a service (ATaaS).  Additionally, the World Bank Group announced a $320 million loan in March 2022 to support environmentally friendly agricultural practices in southwest China. Agricultural greenhouse gas emissions will be reduced, biodiversity will be protected, and agricultural plastic pollution will be minimized through this initiative. ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/1909/biofertilizers-in-asia-trends-prospects-and-growth-potential.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/1909/biofertilizers-in-asia-trends-prospects-and-growth-potential.html Tue, 09 Jan 2024 09:15:00 +0530 Over the past few years, organic food has gained popularity due to health-conscious consumers, environmental awareness, and a desire to make more sustainable and high-quality choices. Agricultural practices that are innovative and sustainable are becoming increasingly important as the organic industry gains traction. Nitrogen-fixing microorganisms are expected to display the highest CAGR during the forecast period. Chemical fertilizers pose a number of health hazards, the increase in government initiatives and an increasing awareness of the importance of sustainability in modern agriculture are some of the reasons for the growth of this segment. Advanced farming with drip irrigation and sprinklers is becoming increasingly popular, as are health concerns. Furthermore, nitrogen-fixing microbes are an environmentally friendly and economically beneficial method of providing nitrogen to plants. Growing organic farming and the growing demand for organic food are contributing factors to the growth of the biofertilizers market. As environmental concerns grow, government initiatives are increasing to promote the use of biofertilizers, and market players are increasingly focusing on inorganic growth strategies. A high demand for synthetic fertilizers and a high cost of biofertilizer production may, however, restrain the growth of this market to some extent.  Market Potential and forecast Organic products are becoming increasingly popular among consumers, which has led to a greater awareness among farmers of the disadvantages of using agricultural chemicals in their operations. Asia-Pacific's demand for biofertilizers will increase 8.6% CAGR during the forecast period. The global Biofertilizers market size was valued at $2685.6 million in 2022 and is expected to expand at a CAGR of 12.26% during the forecast period, reaching USD 5373.87 million by 2028. During the forecast period 2022-2029, the biofertilizers market is expected to reach $3.2 billion at a CAGR of 11.5%. The Asia-Pacific region is expected to grow at the fastest rate during the forecast period. There are several factors driving the growth of this regional market, including the rapid growth of its population and income, increased mechanization, and irrigation facilities. The market for biofertilizers in this region is also boosted by government policies that promote and expand the organic sector. Top Players in Global Biofertilizers Market Global biofertilizer market has a significance for the cereals & grains industry and accounts for the largest share. A large part of the market share in this segment can be attributed to the growing demand for organic and naturally grown cereals & grains, the importance of minimizing chemical fertilizer effects on cereal & grain products, and the vast amount of land cultivated for organic cereal & grain production. Globally, dry biofertilizers are expected to account for the largest share. Dry biofertilizers have gained a large share of this market as they are widely available and highly efficient in all climatic conditions, resulting in the large market share of this segment. Agrinos AS; Kan Biosys Pvt. Ltd; National Fertilizer Ltd; Ajay Bio-Tech (India) Ltd; China Bio-Fertilizer Group; Rizobacter Argentina S.A.; Agri Life; Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Limited; Kiwa Bio-Tech Products Group Corporation; Symborg; Madras Fertilizers Limited; EuroChem Agro GmbH; Lallemand Inc; Syngenta AG; Mapleton Agri Biotec Pty Ltd. The Asia-Pacific Biofertilizer Market is fragmented, with the top five companies occupying 36.97%. The major players in this market are Biostadt India Limited, Gujarat State Fertilizers & Chemicals Ltd, Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited, Kiwa Bio-Tech and The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited. Biofertilizers in demand: Mycorrhizae, Azotobacter, Rhizobium A mycorrhizal-based biofertilizer is at the forefront of sustainable agricultural practices in terms of balancing productivity, health of the environment, and resource efficiency. By leveraging beneficial mycorrhizal fungi, these biofertilizers enhance nutrient uptake, improve soil structure, and increase plant resilience.  As an important tool in promoting environmental health and organic food production, mycorrhizae-based biofertilizers are revolutionizing organic food production. Mycorrhizal fungi enhance the nutritional value of organic food by extracting nutrients from the soil and delivering them to plant roots. Mycorrhizae-based biofertilizers are growing in demand due to the increase in organic and natural food consumption. Biofertilizers based on mycorrhizae are achieving widespread acceptance as a solution that enhances crop flavor while adhering to sustainability principles. By using biofertilizers, farmers and consumers are able to benefit from both better tasting crops and more sustainable practices. Mycorrhizae-based biofertilizers enhance flavor while supporting soil health and biodiversity in sustainable agriculture. A number of genetic and molecular studies are providing insight into the genetic components of mycorrhizal associations, which can assist in the development of biofertilizer formulations that are effective. For specific crops, soil types, and environmental conditions, mycorrhizal fungi are being created as custom blends. Mycorrhizae Based Biofertilizers Market in the globally is growing as a result of these innovations. Furthermore, Azotobacter is the largest nitrogen-fixing bacteria, and is not symbiotic. The product is mainly used for rice, cotton, and vegetables, as well as non-leguminous plants. The fastest-growing form of Rhizobium can replace commercial N fertilizers in leguminous plants by aiding them in removing nitrogen from the soil as Rhizobium increases agricultural productivity. The Azotobacter-based biofertilizers market is dominant in China, accounting for about 31.3% of the market value, which is valued at about USD 137.1 million in 2022. China had 93.5% of the total value of the biofertilizer market in 2022, making it the region's dominant country. A total of 82.3% of the Chinese biofertilizer market was dominated by row crops in 2022. The organic acreage of row crops in the country was 2.1 million hectares in 2022. Commercialization and Product Innovation: To maximize yields and promote sustainability, integrated agriculture combines various practices. The principles of integrated agriculture are well aligned with mycorrhiza-based products. The products promoted soil health, nutrient cycling, and plant resilience, which contributed to diversified agriculture. With integrated agriculture, soil health is prioritized and chemical inputs are reduced, which further boosts mycorrhizae's demand. ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/1916/asias-investment-potential-in-regenerative-agriculture.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/1916/asias-investment-potential-in-regenerative-agriculture.html Tue, 02 Jan 2024 09:45:00 +0530 The global regenerative agriculture market was valued at $920.6 million in 2022 and is expected to reach $3247.34 million in 2030, with a CAGR of 14.80% during the forecast period 2023-2030. Agricultural emissions are one of the major contributors to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, so eliminating farm emissions, particularly from crop production and livestock grazing, is essential to achieving net-zero climate goals. More than a third of global GHG emissions are attributed to the agrifood system, according to the United Nations. It is estimated that almost 70% of the emissions from the whole agrifood system are caused by land use change and farming practices. Sustainable agricultural practices and land use optimization are integral parts of regenerative agriculture for tackling scope 3 emissions and building farmer resilience. A number of innovative technology solutions are available to accelerate regenerative farming, but they require the right strategies, strong partnerships among farmers, agribusinesses, and government agencies, as well as capital support. In spite of its potential role in mitigating climate change and ensuring rural communities' climate resilience, agriculture only receives 4% of global climate finance.  Asia-Pacific (APAC) is experiencing rapid growth in the regenerative agriculture market due to a variety of factors. In addition, there is substantial government support, population growth, an increase in environmental awareness, and the use of advanced agricultural technologies. In the APAC region, these factors foster a favorable environment for regenerative agriculture practices to spread. To unlock capital and forge partnerships, agribusiness companies implement regenerative agriculture practices, as well as the latest trends and technologies in the industry. For instance, The Asian Development Bank will also present ways to help companies interested in developing regenerative agriculture, including providing financing. Enterprise Singapore will host the event to encourage sharing of best practices amongst the Singapore agrifood ecosystem. The global regenerative agriculture market was valued at $920.6 million in 2022 and is expected to reach $3247.34 million in 2030, with a CAGR of 14.80% during the forecast period 2023-2030. A regenerative agriculture market includes agricultural strategies and systems aimed at boosting soil health, enhancing ecosystem durability, and improving overall sustainability. Taking proactive steps to rejuvenate and revitalize land, soil, and ecosystems, regenerative agriculture differs from traditional sustainable farming methods. It emphasizes soil organic matter replacement, water retention, erosion mitigation, and biodiversity enhancement. Improved soil health is achieved by reducing tillage, implementing cover crops, rotating crops, and incorporating organic materials. As well as boosting productivity, robust soil health also boosts resilience to environmental challenges. Some of the companies operating in the regenerative ecosystem are; Alter Eco, Bluebird Grain Farms, Cargill, Incorporated, CIBO Technologies, Continuum Ag., Danone S.A., Ecological Farming Association, General Mills Inc., New Leaf Tree Syrups, Regena Roots. Precision agriculture and farmer service platforms are most attractive due to regulatory support, market adoption readiness, and big addressable market. Within precision agriculture and platforms, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam are most attractive due to infrastructure readiness and strong regulatory support. Government, industry, and finance actions can unleash full potential by addressing accessibility and economic issues.  Key actions to accelerate trajectory to full potential  Improve market accessibility: Increase growth-stage financing to develop innovative business models with clear monetization potential by backing AgTech start-ups with clear potential for scale, Develop, scale carbon credit market for regenerative agri and Issue certifications for sustainable produce that may command consumer premium. Confront transition costs : Increase investment/support for farmer connectivity by deploying rural connectivity infrastructure not commercially sustainable for MNOs today, requires more government subsidy. In addition, connectivity is critical to drive scale adoption of digital solutions (especially, for smallholders) and make them financially viable.  Strengthen green financing: Boost investment momentum through government support. For example, Singapore equity program, is a government co-funding early-stage Sustainable farming with private investors. Improving economics for AgTech funds by reducing farm ownership fragmentation and Supporting farmer financing would greatly benefit.  Collaboration/partnerships among stakeholders: By facilitating public-private partnerships and establishing partnerships among motivated agribusinesses, private players will have access to data, infrastructure, and research expertise. Furthermore, government agencies can serve as flagship adopters of new technology (that benefit smallholders) and corporations can provide stipends and training. The key objective of regenerative agriculture is to sequester carbon within the soil, thus contributing to climate change mitigation. Consequently, healthy soils reduce greenhouse gas emissions by capturing and storing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.In addition to soil degradation, water scarcity, and the impacts of climate change, the global regenerative agriculture market is driven primarily by increasing awareness of environmental challenges. Due to this increased awareness, regenerative agriculture practices have gained popularity, since they are considered more sustainable and environmentally friendly. Environmentally friendly farming methods are becoming increasingly popular with both consumers and businesses. Regenerative agriculture's growth has also been fueled by government support. Through subsidies, incentives, and regulatory measures, many governments are incentivizing regenerative farming practices. Supporting sustainable agricultural practices encourages more farmers to adopt them. A significant investment is often required to transition from traditional agriculture to regenerative agriculture. It may be necessary for farmers to invest in new equipment, adopt new techniques, and upgrade their infrastructure. A substantial number of opportunities exist for regenerative agriculture in the global market as a result of technological advancements. With innovations like precision farming, data analytics, and remote sensing, regenerative practices can be implemented more efficiently and effectively. Regenerative agriculture is becoming more accessible and profitable thanks to these technologies ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/1474/international-dairy-federation-idf-announces-new-board-of-directors.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/1474/international-dairy-federation-idf-announces-new-board-of-directors.html Wed, 18 Oct 2023 10:55:32 +0530 Announces new Board of Directors and IDF Dairy Innovation Awards The International Dairy Federation  IDF World Dairy Summit 2023 commenced on 16 October under the theme “BE Dairy: Boundless Potential. Endless Possibilities”. The US, the world’s 2nd largest milk producer, is hosting 4 days of sessions exploring the latest developments in dairy science, technology, knowledge and innovation from all over the world. The IDF World dairy Summit 2023 will also be an unparalleled opportunity for networking for dairy leaders and experts from all over the world. This year marks the 120th anniversary of the International Dairy Federation's establishment. The IDF has played a pivotal role in fostering dairy science and technological innovation worldwide and making substantial contributions to the sustainable development of the global dairy industry. With 39 member countries representing 74% of the world's milk production, the IDF holds unparalleled influence in shaping the industry's future. IDF as the foremost advocate for scientific and technical expertise in the global dairy sector, and with the 2023 World Food Forum being hosted by the Food and Agriculture Organization, the IDF’s General Assembly, comprised of diverse dairy-producing nations worldwide, underscores the significance of collaborative efforts. Dairy’s premier global gathering returns to the United States (Chicago) for the first time in 30 years, featuring dynamic programming, consisting of eight plenary sessions, and twenty-one concurrent break-out sessions, all led by world-renowned experts. The IDF World Dairy Summit 2023 is aiming to foster collaboration, celebrate innovation, and shape the future of the global dairy industry. In addition to its robust program and networking opportunities, it is providing an unrivaled forum for stakeholders to share knowledge and drive dairy excellence globally. IDF has signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with other key stakeholders like ICAR, the International Committee for Animal Recording (ICAR), and IICA (Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture). As IDF President Piercristiano Brazzale emphasized “IDF World Dairy Summit 2023 is an international congregation of dairy enthusiasts, researchers, policymakers, and industry leaders that holds the key to transforming dairy’s promise into a vibrant reality. The summit forges a united front in advancing dairy excellence across the globe”. New Board of the International Dairy Federation New Board of Director IDF, Dr Meenesh Shah Chairman of NDDB and Dr. Yun Zhanyou, Vice President of Yili Group along with IDF President Piercristiano Brazzale On October 15, 2023, The International Dairy Federation (IDF) held its Board of Directors election. Dr Meenesh Shah serving as Chairman & Managing Director at India’s National Dairy Development Board (NDDB) and Dr. Yun Zhanyou, Vice President of Yili Group are among the three newly elected Board of Directors at IDF. Dr Shah has been associated with IDF since long in different capacities and has been instrumental in sensitising the world about the unique smallholder-based Indian dairying system in different international forums. He is the Member Secretary of the Indian National Committee and also a member of the Standing Committee on Dairy Policy and Economics. Dr Shah mentioned that India contributes to more than 23% of the global milk production, and now will be representing the Board of IDF, which will ensure a more inclusive and better global dairying ecosystem. This will also help put forth the voice of millions of dairy farmers from the smallholder-based dairying system to the global forum and help design suitable policies, frameworks, systems and processes.  Dr. Yun Zhanyou, Vice President of Yili Group said "I'm honored and proud to be a part of the IDF board of directors, and it comes with a greater sense of responsibility. We're excited about having closer communication with the global dairy industry and sharing the valuable experiences and accomplishments of Chinese dairy companies in areas like innovation research, digitalization, and sustainable development. Our goal is to work together and create more opportunities, unlocking the boundless potential of the global dairy industry". The Board of Directors is the governing body that manages the strategy of IDF, endorsed by the General Assembly to meet the needs of the constantly changing and dynamic dairy sector. The Board of Directors provide detail on general IDF operational policies and strategies, and the vision and the mission of the Federation. The Board supervises the execution of the decisions of the General Assembly, and makes recommendations on IDF policies and priorities to the General Assembly. IDF Board of Directors. Comprising nine industry associations and business representatives from member countries, this influential body serves as the primary hub for research, decision-making, and coordination within the IDF. The Board President, the Chair of the Science and Programme Coordination Committee, four Delegates of the General Assembly, two dairy sector representatives (one for farming and the other for processing) and the Chair of the National Secretaries Committee will be part of it. IDF Dairy Innovation Awards The IDF World dairy Summit also hosted the second edition of the IDF Dairy Innovation Awards 2023 on 17 October, aimed at showcasing the most innovative and groundbreaking innovations of global dairy. The IDF Dairy Innovation Awards is an International Dairy Federation initiative designed to celebrate and encourage innovative practices across the global dairy sector, which was launched in 2022 in partnership with Zenith Global and supported by headline sponsorship from Tetra Pak. With a particular focus on Sustainability, both in terms of environmental care and positive social impact, the awards seek to stimulate innovative practices that improve farming and processing of milk and dairy foods. In this years edition, the IDF Dairy Innovation Awards received 173 entries from 26 countries, representing a 20% increase over last year's entry number indicating Dairy industry commitment to innovation and sustainability throughout the multistage milk and dairy production value chain. Innovation in Sustainable Farming Practices (Environment) awarded to Bioret Agri for Aqualim Thermodynamic and Dairy Australia for Environmental Tracker Innovation in Sustainable Farming Practices (Animal Care) awarded to FaunaTech for FaunaTech tool Innovation in Sustainable Farming Practices (Socio-Economic) awarded to Danone for transforming the food system by empowering Algerian Smallholder farmers Innovation in Sustainable Processing awarded to Hochschule Hanover for development of a RO-NF-UF membrane cascade to concentrate skim milk to a dry matter of > 48% Innovation in Marketing & Communication Initiative Building Dairy Category awarded to Dairy Farmers of Canada for Innovation in New Product Development with focus on Food Safety and Consumer Nutrition; Unison Process Solutions for Heist System; and Yili Group Ltd for Ambient Cheese Lollipop Innovation in Sustainable Packaging awarded to Yili Group Ltd for declaring "Your Love to the Earth with Actions" – SATINE Environmentally Sustainable Packaging with No Ink or Printing Innovation in Women Empowerment in the Dairy Sector awarded to Shreeja Milk for Shreeja Milk Innovation in Climate Action awarded to Lactanet and Semex, Canada IDF is the leading source of scientific and technical expertise for all stakeholders of the dairy chain. IDF's network of dairy experts has provided a mechanism for the dairy sector to reach global consensus on how to help feed the world with safe and sustainable dairy products. IDF members are National Committees, generally constituted by dairy organizations in each country and India is represented by the National Committee (INC) of the IDF.  ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/1410/2023-global-trends-influencing-agribusiness-and-market-dynamics.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/1410/2023-global-trends-influencing-agribusiness-and-market-dynamics.html Fri, 22 Sep 2023 10:16:52 +0530 Agrifood market projected to reach $9.73 trillion in 2023 and $12 trillion by 2027, representing a CAGR of +6%. Agrifood market growth is expected to reach $8.67 trillion by 2022, up from $8.28 trillion as per the market analytics. Moreover, the sector is projected to reach $9.73 trillion in 2023 and $12 trillion by 2027, representing a CAGR of +6%. Several factors contribute to this growth, including population growth, technological advancements, and shifting consumer preferences. Although the ongoing Ukrainian war has increased the industry's challenges and uncertainties, resulting in a drop in production and sales, the non-reducible nature of food products has allowed companies in the industry to increase sales prices in order to compensate for lower volumes.  Countries around the world are making concerted efforts to increase their food production self-sufficiency in order to feed their citizens. Major crops, staple foods and raw materials like pesticides and fertilizers are highly dependent on a few markets, exposing governments and whole populations to food production disruptions and food insecurity. To build self-reliance in their food-supply systems, governments are going to adopt technology and data in large-scale to increase productivity, efficiency, and predictability. Global food insecurity and economic instability will make reducing food wastage a priority for economies. Globally, one third of food produced is lost or wasted, and technology will play an increasingly important role in preventing this. In real-time, digital solutions can send growers real-time advisories to reduce wastage during cultivation by monitoring the crop lifecycle. The Internet of Things (IoT) can enable end-to-end food traceability for farmers, processors, and retailers. Global Agro-food Market Dynamics: In 2022-2023, the global agrifood market will be shaped by technological advancements, shifting consumer preferences, sustainability concerns, and geopolitical factors. Market dynamics are further complicated by the ongoing war in Ukraine, underscoring the importance of resilience, innovation, and international collaboration to meet the multiple challenges the industry faces. A number of countries have taken measures in response to the Ukraine conflict and rising food prices, such as releasing food reserves, implementing price controls, and offering financial assistance to farmers and consumers. Climate change and deglobalization are reshaping global relationships, which will lead to more strategic positioning for food products in the future. Furthermore, Global warming has resulted in poorer nations suffering from the effects of climate change, the United Nations noted recently. Investments in sustainability projects are expected to continue to grow, despite the woefully underfunded climate adaptation finance. Smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia will benefit from a $1.4 billion commitment from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the US Department of Agriculture will invest $2.8 billion in 70 selected projects as part of its Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities program. Following the trends, the private sector is considered to be having a positive impact. FAO’s Food Outlook estimated that the global food bill will rise to $1.98 trillion in 2023, up 1.5% from 2022. It rose by 11% in 2022 and 18% in 2021. According to FAO, food imports by advanced economies continue to grow. However, FAO predicts that food import bills for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) will decrease by 1.5% and those for net food-importing developing countries (NFIDCs) will decrease by 4.9%. The last quarter of 2022 saw financial deterioration in most industries, according to market analysts. On average, revenues grew by 4.0% y/y, but earnings per share (EPS) declined by -4.9%. Despite challenging circumstances, the agrifood industry remained profitable.  Deficiencies and Strengths of the Agro-food Industry: An increasingly diverse and growing market Agrifood serves a wide range of consumer needs and preferences, offering a wide range of products to meet the demands of a growing global population. Advances in technology, such as precision agriculture, the Internet of Things, and artificial intelligence, have improved efficiency, reduced waste, and increased yield.  A growing focus on sustainability is enabling the industry to adopt sustainable and regenerative agricultural practices, reduce its environmental impact, and respond to consumer demand for eco-friendly products. However, supply chain vulnerabilities in the industry can result from climate change, political instability, and economic fluctuations. Deforestation, soil degradation, water pollution, and biodiversity loss can be caused by conventional agricultural practices. A heavy reliance on non-renewable resources, such as fossil fuels and synthetic fertilizers, can have long-term sustainability implications. In addition, Agri-financing is evolving at a very slow pace. There are also risks associated with emerging diseases and pests that threaten crop and livestock health. An outbreak of African swine fever, avian influenza, or new crop pests can result in significant economic loss, supply chain disruption, and food safety concerns. In spite of this generally positive outlook, the global agrifood production systems remain vulnerable, resulting from extreme weather events, geopolitical tension, policy changes, and developments in commodity markets, which could affect prices and world food security and tip the fragile demand-supply balance. Agri-financing and sustainability investments: The majority of agri-food enterprises in many developing countries are small family farms and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) which are majorly contributing to achieving food and nutrition security, promoting inclusive growth, protecting water, land and biodiversity, and achieving climate action. The goal is to make blended financing work for agricultural businesses. Agri-SMEs can achieve the Sustainable Development Goals by mobilizing finance in this context and using blended finance. Producer prices have increased, fertilizer costs have eased, and government assistance programs are aiming to provide positive incentives. Agri-SMEs can access more capital and tailored financial products by leveraging blended finance, one of the proven and practical approaches promoted by the global 2030 Agenda. Blended finance instruments can facilitate commercial financing for agri-SMEs in a variety of contexts. Risk mitigation instruments are often particularly beneficial, since credit risk is often a key obstacle to financing. By fostering lending to targeted projects, such as women-owned and youth-led enterprises, blended finance models are able to improve financial inclusion. The creation of new markets and value chains around agri-SMEs can be stimulated by blended finance models - particularly through technical assistance and/or grants. It is important to design blended finance programs with room for experimentation, innovation, and adjustment. By engaging target groups closely, commercial finance challenges can be understood both from a supply and demand perspective. As a key partner in developing and implementing blended finance solutions that impact not only individual transactions, but also market factors underlying investment risk, local institutions – including financial institutions, governments, and players in the agri-food industry – are critical. Despite its challenges, blended finance works well for agri-SMEs - a sector with a lot of promise and importance for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). By means of their aid agencies, or development finance institutions (DFIs), or multilateral development banks (MDBs), donor governments have the financial instruments to mobilize private finance for agri-SMEs. Yet, they are currently unable to achieve their potential due to a lack of adequate financing.  Empowering smallholder farmers: In recent years, private players, governments, and development agencies have focused heavily on developing farmer-centric solutions and this trend is expected to accelerate in 2023. A staggering 500 million farmers around the world are small-holders, who are difficult to reach. Stakeholders in the global food system have realized that meaningful and enduring changes to agriculture cannot be achieved until smallholder farmers are trained and empowered to adopt smarter, more efficient, and more sustainable farming practices. In the coming years, farmer empowerment will dominate the corporate boards of agribusinesses since digitalization will help make it easy and inexpensive for them to use technology. The role of regenerative agriculture in soil degradation reduction Soil conservation and biodiversity will receive more investments because productive agriculture relies on healthy soil. In order to prevent soil degradation and maintain and improve soil health, there is much more to be done. Data-driven decisions must be made by farmers regarding the optimal use of water, pesticides, and agrochemicals, as well as regenerative farming practices that can nurture soil health. New initiatives and investments have to be launched by policymakers, agrochemical companies, technology companies, and NGOs. Some Asian markets, such as Hong Kong and Singapore, are particularly interested in vertical farming as an innovation trend. By 2025, the vertical farming market is expected to reach $10 billion, with a growth rate of around 21% each year until then. An Overview of Commodity Trends: According to the FAO's latest Food Outlook, which contains forecasts for production, trade, and utilization of the world's most important basic foodstuffs, production will likely increase across many categories, including rice, grains, oils, milk, sugar, meat, and fish products. Despite last season's record wheat output, it may fall this season. FAO reports that the International trade is expected to drop by 4.3% in volume terms to 53.6 million tonnes in 2023/24 as world rice production increases by 1.3% to 523.5 million tonnes. During 2023, world wheat production is expected to decline by 3.0 percent from it's all-time high of 777 million tonnes in 2022, primarily due to decreases in the Russian Federation and Australia, which registered record outputs in 2018.  Overall, taking swift and decisive action and investing the right amount of money is essential to sustaining the planet and living sustainably. The year 2023 could very well be our make-or-break year. ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/1394/indias-g20-presidency-forges-global-energy-transition-agenda.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/1394/indias-g20-presidency-forges-global-energy-transition-agenda.html Fri, 15 Sep 2023 11:14:39 +0530 Renewable energy and green financing took the center stage of the G20 summit A new G-20 presidency is assumed by India on December 1, 2022, taking over from Indonesia, providing an opportunity for India to demonstrate that it is a rising power and a global energy leader. As the world's most populous country and the fifth-largest economy in the world, India is positioning itself well to lead the transition to cleaner energy sources amid immense pressure from its growing energy needs. The G-20 provided India with an opportunity to pivot the global energy system towards low carbon fuels during its presidency at New Delhi from 9th to 10th September.  The major focus of the summit was on Green Energy, Sustainable energy, and replacement of fossil fuel by Biofuel. In a joint statement, the G20 countries agreed to take immediate action to reduce unabated coal power, but did not commit to phase out all fossil fuels, including oil and gas, that cause pollution. G20 countries contribute to nearly 85% of the world's GDP and hence it was crucial for the global leaders to accelerate the transition to a net-zero energy future by scaling up renewable energy. The summit emphasized the importance of "Common but Differentiated Responsibility" in addressing climate change, as well as the need to reduce global carbon emissions and switch to cleaner energy sources. In pursuit of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the G-20 leaders pledged to accelerate progress on green development and climate finance through the Lifestyle for Environment (LiFE) movement. India prioritized energy transition goals under the G-20 framework by promoting green development and climate finance, inclusive and resilient growth, and progress on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A key goal of India's environmental conservation effort is to show how economic development can coexist with environmental conservation. Delhi Declaration Act As part of the G20 summit this year, the Delhi Declaration was adopted, addressing the concerns of the so-called petro states while committing to global net zero emissions by mid-century as part of a commitment to the Paris Agreement. An effective transition to net-zero emissions requires increasing renewable energy and eliminating fossil fuels unabated. In line with the findings of the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), delegates stressed the importance of reaching global greenhouse gas emission peaks somewhere between 2020 and no later than 2025 in order to achieve the Paris Agreement's temperature goals. Implementing national climate plans Global GHG emissions need to be reduced by 43% by 2030 compared to 2019 levels in order to limit global warming to 1.5°C. A voluntary action plan to double the rate of energy efficiency improvement by 2030 was also noted by the group, which includes some of the richest economies in the world. Nevertheless, the Paris Agreement remains inadequate as far as achieving temperature objectives outlined in combating climate change is concerned. For developing countries to implement their national climate plans effectively in the pre-2030 period, they will need $5.9 trillion, preferably $1.5 trillion, with the aim of keeping global warming below 2°C. In accordance with national circumstances and taking into account the latest scientific developments, the G20 has committed to achieving global net zero emissions by mid-century. As part of existing targets and policies, the forum committed to doubling renewable energy capacity by 2030, as well as demonstrating similar ambitions in regard to other low-emission and zero-emission technologies, including abatement and removal technologies, based on national conditions. For developing countries to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, approximately $4 trillion will be required annually for clean energy technologies by 2030, according to a G20 member. Investment and climate finance need to be scaled up substantially, from billions to trillions of dollars from all sources. Furthermore, G20 countries urged developed countries to double their collective adaptation finance provision by 2025.  Besides aligning financial flows with climate objectives, the Declaration stressed the need to expand finance, capacity-building, and technology transfer to meet developing countries' needs. As part of delegate commitment, which dates back to 2009, developed countries reaffirm their commitment to mobilize $100 billion in climate finance by 2020, continuing through 2025. This goal is expected to be reached for the first time in 2023 by developed countries. A minimum of $100 billion in climate finance was also called for by the G20 in 2024, including ambitious, transparent, and trackable New Collective Quantified Goals (NCQGs). They said this should consider the needs and priorities of developing countries in alignment with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and Paris Agreement objectives. It is important to note that the Pittsburgh conversation was not one between energy ministers, as mentioned in the reference to phasing out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. Swati D'Souza, Lead Analyst & Coordinator, India, International Energy Agency shared with international media's that "From an energy and climate perspective, the Indian G20 presidency had an ambitious agenda focused on new and emerging clean energy technologies and finance. But as it happens, this agenda got repurposed. The only highlight right now is the clear and concise language with respect to tripling RE. This provides a platform for further clarification between now and COP (target, baseline, year). Moreover, if this gets into COP summaries, it becomes another hook for countries to expand their NDC ambitions on". Global Biofuel Alliance (GBA) A Global Biofuel Alliance was also launched at the G20 Summit in New Delhi on 9 September by India along with leaders of Singapore, Bangladesh, Italy, the USA, Brazil, Argentina, Mauritius, and the United Arab Emirates. The Alliance intends to expedite the global uptake of biofuels through facilitating technology advancements, intensifying utilization of sustainable biofuels, shaping robust standard setting and certification through the participation of a wide spectrum of stakeholders. The alliance will also act as a central repository of knowledge and an expert hub. GBA aims to serve as a catalytic platform, fostering global collaboration for the advancement and widespread adoption of biofuels. ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/1355/revolutionizing-modern-agriculture-with-nano-fertilizers.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/1355/revolutionizing-modern-agriculture-with-nano-fertilizers.html Fri, 01 Sep 2023 11:16:35 +0530 A nano fertilizer can deliver nutrients more efficiently than traditional fertilizers, reducing waste and improving plant growth. A relatively new development in fertilizers, nano fertilizers deliver nutrients to plants more effectively and efficiently than traditional fertilizers. Nano fertilizers are composed of tiny particles with dimensions of one billionth of a meter or smaller. They are composed of nanonutrients, which are ultra-minute particles of nutrient ions. Plants grow better and produce more when nutrients are delivered specifically to specific tissues. Fertilizers traditionally consist of macro-sized particles that dissolve in soil and release nutrients for plants to absorb. Nanofertilizers typically have particle sizes of less than 1000 nanometers and are about 40,000 times smaller than human hair. A nanofertilizer consists of particles that are much smaller and are designed to penetrate plant tissue and deliver nutrients directly into cells. Plant nutrients are delivered to plants more efficiently and effectively with nano fertilizers. A variety of materials can be utilized for the manufacture of nano fertilizers, including silica, zinc oxide, and carbon nanotubes. In addition to foliar spraying, seed coating, and root dipping, they can also be applied to plants through a number of different methods. Plant growth and productivity are improved by an effective targeted delivery system that ensures plants receive the nutrients in the right amounts. Agricultural productivity and sustainability can be enhanced with nano fertilizers. Using them can make fertilizers more efficient, reduce environmental pollution, and make plants more resistant to diseases and droughts. Advantages and benefits of the nan0-fertiliser process: Various nano fertilizers can be used, such as nanochelated micronutrient fertilizers, nanosilicon fertilizers, nanoorganic fertilizers, nanoslow-release fertilizers, and nanobiofertilizers. Nano fertilizers offer several advantages over traditional fertilizers, including improved efficiency, reduced waste, and increased nutrient uptake. Some drawbacks of these materials, however, include potential toxicity and high production costs.  Nevertheless, Nano fertilizers are considered to be having the potential to reduce environmental pollution by minimizing the amount of excess nutrients that are released into the environment. Furthermore, nano fertilizers help plants resist environmental stressors such as droughts and diseases. Plant defense mechanisms are activated by some types of nano fertilizers, such as silicon nanoparticle fertilizers, which can increase resistance to biotic and abiotic stress. Associated challenges and regulatory policies  A potential health risk associated with nano fertilizers is one of their concerns. Because nanoparticles are so small, soil and water systems may have difficulties accumulating them. Silver nanoparticles, for example, have been shown to have toxic effects on soil microbes and other organisms. Silica and carbon nanoparticles, however, have been found to be relatively safe. Many countries have regulations and policies governing the production, use, and disposal of nano fertilizers in order to ensure their safety. A major consideration for the widespread adoption of nano fertilizers in agriculture is their cost-effectiveness. In spite of the higher cost of nano fertilizers, their targeted delivery system may increase efficiency and reduce waste, which might offset the higher price. Nano fertilizers are cost-effective when used in combination with certain crops and conditions. Production costs, application rates, and crop types all play a role in their cost-effectiveness. Nano fertilizers market dynamics and key players The nano fertilizer market is segmented on the raw materials, methods of applications and application. Based on raw materials, the market is segmented into nitrogen, silver, carbon, zinc and others. Based on the methods of applications, the nano fertilizer market is segmented into a spray or foliar and soil. Based on applications, the nano fertilizer market is segmented into cereals & grains, oilseeds & pulses, fruits & vegetables and others In recent year, EuroChem Group AG entered into exclusive discussions to buy the nitrogen business of the Borealis group. Borealis is also a melamine market leader, with plants in Austria and Germany supplying the critical raw ingredient principally to the woodworking sector. Melamine and technical nitrogen solutions are significant new business streams for EuroChem as it seeks to extend its nitrogen-based product range throughout Europe. Some other major key players in the Nano Fertilizer market are: Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Limited Lazuriton Nano Biotechnology Co., Ltd. Fanavar Nano-Pazhoohesh Markazi Company Tropical Agrosystem India (P) Ltd. EuroChem Shan Maw Myae Trading Co., Ltd Geolife Group AG CHEMI Group, s.r.o. JU Agri Sciences Pvt. Ltd. Nano Solutions and more Nano fertilizers are projected to grow in the coming years as chemical fertilizers are increasingly replaced by nano fertilizers. Innovative developments in nanotechnology have made it possible to synthesize nanoparticles at large scales to create nano-fertilizers. Globally, the demand for nano fertilizers is expected to grow due to the growing population over the next five years. A growing demand for crops with higher yields will further support the growth of the nano fertilizer industry worldwide. ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/1351/streamlining-agtech-logistics-with-enhanced-data-analytics.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/91/1351/streamlining-agtech-logistics-with-enhanced-data-analytics.html Fri, 01 Sep 2023 08:29:33 +0530 Innovative AgTech solutions and services to remove inefficiencies and solve real business challenges A significant surge in AI-driven technologies has been witnessed in the agricultural industry in recent years, particularly in commodity trading. Agribusiness markets are being revolutionized by these advanced systems, which change the way trading operations are carried out. From 2023 to 2032, the AI in agriculture market is expected to grow at a CAGR of over 20%. While AI finds numerous applications in agriculture, such as using robots, its impact is greater when viewed from the perspective of analytics-based software. Agricultural commodity traders can benefit greatly from artificial intelligence by swiftly processing vast amounts of data, a task that traditional traders often have difficulty with. For instance, the U.S based Ever.Ag, the AgTech provider dedicated to empowering supply chains to feed a growing world, is excited to announce the acquisition of Roger®, an industry leader in bulk agriculture commodity trucking technology and logistics. The acquisition expands Ever.Ag's unique portfolio of software, risk management resources, and market intelligence offerings. Roger was the creation of a group of prominent agriculture industry companies, including: The Andersons Inc., Cargill, Consolidated Grain and Barge, Koch Fertilizer, The Scoular Company, and Bushel. They shared a vision of a neutral logistics platform that would digitize and streamline bulk ag hauling. Over the past year, the charter member companies recognized the future path to greater success for Roger would be dependent on advanced technical and analytical capabilities. "Joining Ever.Ag and their innovative AgTech solutions and services allows Roger to expand our offerings, helping customers to remove inefficiencies and solve real business challenges. Roger will become a more valuable resource for the entire agriculture industry," said Jeff Schreiner, CEO of Roger. "The key to Roger's success is being able to provide better data-driven insights that allow customers to make more informed and profitable decisions for their business." With Roger's up-to-date and reliable hauling information, clients can optimize logistics throughout the bulk agricultural trucking sector. With a focus on transparency and traceability, Ever.Ag will leverage the Roger platform to manage bulk movements across all commodities. ]]>