https://agrospectrumasia.com/rssfeed/opinion/statistical%20report statistical report https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/90/3623/new-global-standard-for-farm-data-inside-faos-wca-2030-programme.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/90/3623/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/90/3622/digitizing-farm-balance-sheet-rwas-and-future-of-agri-finance.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/90/3622/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/90/3544/agriculture-isnt-just-load-its-grid-infrastructure.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/90/3544/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/90/3482/abs-reform-is-missing-link-in-indias-plant-based-innovation-story.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/90/3482/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/90/3396/brazilian-bioinput-industry-faces-decisive-moment-as-regulatory-framework-takes-shape-says-abinbio.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/90/3396/brazilian-bioinput-industry-faces-decisive-moment-as-regulatory-framework-takes-shape-says-abinbio.html Mon, 17 Nov 2025 10:49:19 +0530 Brazil’s biological inputs industry is entering a decisive regulatory phase as the Ministry of Agriculture drafts rules under the newly approved Civil Framework for Biological Inputs. ABINBIO, which has secured a central role in the negotiations, is pushing for unified industry participation to shape regulations, correct outdated tax classifications, and unlock federal financing mechanisms. The association is also working to position Brazil globally, leveraging its biodiversity to expand international markets for biocontrol and biofertiliser products. With the domestic market expected to double to over $ 3 billion by 2030 and biologicals rapidly replacing synthetics, ABINBIO leaders warn that industry unity now will determine competitiveness for decades. Brazil's biological inputs industry stands at a critical juncture as regulators begin drafting rules that will govern one of the world's fastest-growing agricultural sectors, according to the Brazilian Association of Bioinput Industries (ABINBIO). The trade group is urging companies to unite during what it characterizes as a "historic window" that will determine competitive dynamics for decades. "We are at a historic moment. The rules of the game are being discussed now and will be established, with the Ministry of Agriculture as protagonist," said Auro Ruschel, ABINBIO's legal director and head of Auro Ruschel Advogados Associados, a firm specializing in agricultural input regulation. "The industry needs to unite around ABINBIO to participate in this public debate and build regulation that serves the sector's interests." Regulatory Architecture Under Construction The urgency stems from ongoing Ministry of Agriculture technical working groups tasked with implementing Brazil's newly approved Civil Framework for Biological Inputs. ABINBIO, which secured a seat at the negotiating table, successfully inserted key provisions into the legislation and now faces the challenge of translating broad legal principles into operational regulations. The association's "purposeful bias," as Ruschel describes it, focuses on pragmatic problem-solving for an industry previously constrained by regulatory frameworks designed for synthetic agrochemicals rather than biological alternatives. Since its official launch, ABINBIO has expanded beyond core regulatory advocacy to address taxation classification issues with the Federal Revenue Service, where biological products remain erroneously categorized alongside chemical pesticides for customs and tax purposes—a legacy classification system that creates compliance burdens and competitive disadvantages. Financial Infrastructure and Global Positioning The organization is simultaneously pursuing access to federal incentive mechanisms, including financing lines from FINEP (Financier of Studies and Projects), EMPRAPII (Brazilian Company for Research and Industrial Innovation), and BNDES (National Bank for Economic and Social Development), which historically favored established chemical input manufacturers. International market development represents another strategic priority. "The bioinput industry in Brazil, due to our country's characteristics, can adapt and sell products for all biomes. Internationalization is fundamental for opening new markets," Ruschel explained, highlighting Brazil's unique biodiversity advantage in developing biological solutions applicable across diverse global agricultural systems. Despite its recent formation, ABINBIO has secured institutional recognition typically reserved for established trade associations. "Despite being a young association, ABINBIO already has relevant seats within the federal government and public debate, alongside traditional entities. We've achieved the same spaces and speaking opportunities despite our youth," Ruschel noted. Market Dynamics Drive Urgency The stakes justify the mobilization effort. According to Dunham Trimmer, an international bio-intelligence agency, Brazil's biological inputs market currently exceeds 1.5 billion and is projected to surpass 3 billion by decade's end. The country accounts for over 20 per cent of global biocontrol growth between 2021 and 2030. The sector comprises approximately 145 companies, with significant expansion anticipated as biological products increasingly substitute synthetic chemicals—a global trend driven by sustainability mandates and consumer preferences. Ruschel projects substantial market amplification through 2032, characterizing biological inputs as "a highly relevant, highly sustainable economic vertical with a significant growth trajectory." Coordination Imperative Ruschel's message echoes ABINBIO President Marcelo de Godoy Oliveira's positioning, distilled to a single directive: "Unity." "All sector companies must understand that the rules of the game are being discussed now. It is imperative that all input industries pay attention and participate," Ruschel warned. Participation channels through ABINBIO membership, which enables companies to integrate into regulatory discussions, designate board representatives, and collaborate on technical arguments presented to government working groups. The objective, Ruschel emphasized, centers on "building regulation that serves industry interests, without creating market reserves or impediments, but allowing the industry to grow increasingly." The call reflects recognition that regulatory architecture established during this formative period will either facilitate or constrain an industry positioned as a cornerstone of sustainable Brazilian agriculture. As synthetic input substitution accelerates globally, Brazil's regulatory approach could establish templates for emerging markets while determining whether domestic producers capture value or cede market share to international competitors operating under different frameworks. ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/90/1430/bayers-global-research-on-climate-change-reports-impact-on-farm-lands-across-8-countries.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/90/1430/bayers-global-research-on-climate-change-reports-impact-on-farm-lands-across-8-countries.html Fri, 29 Sep 2023 11:19:40 +0530 On average farmers estimate that their incomes had reduced by 15.7% due to climate change in the past two years. In a recent global research report by Bayer, Climate impacts estimated to have reduced farmer incomes by 15.7% on average over the past two years / Most pressing short-term challenges dominated by economic uncertainty and cost concerns / Yet 4 in 5 farmers have already taken or plan to take steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 71% of farmers say that climate change already has a large impact on their farm, and even more are worried about the impact this will have in the future. 73% have experienced increasing pest and disease pressure. On average farmers estimate that their incomes had reduced by 15.7% due to climate change in the past two years. One in six farmers even identifies income losses of over 25% during this period. These are some of the key findings from the “Farmer Voice” survey, published today, which reveals the challenges facing farmers around the world as they try to mitigate the impacts of climate change and adapt for the future. To conduct the “Farmer Voice”, life science company Bayer commissioned an agency to independently interview 800 farmers globally, representing farms large and small from Australia, Brazil, China, Germany, India, Kenya, Ukraine, and the United States in equal numbers. Farmers expect the repercussions of climate change to continue. Three-quarters of them globally (76%) are worried about the impact that climate change will have on their farm, with farmers in Kenya and India most concerned. Rodrigo Santos, Member of the Board of Management of Bayer AG and President of the Crop Science Division, commented: “Farmers are already experiencing the adverse effects of climate change on their fields and at the same time they play a key role in tackling this huge challenge. This is why it is so important to put their voice front and center. The losses reported in this survey make the direct threat climate change poses to global food security crystal clear. In the face of a growing world population, the results must be a catalyst for efforts to make agriculture regenerative.” Economic challenges are compounding farmer pressures While climate change is a dominant overarching theme, economic challenges are the biggest priority over the next three years. Over half (55%) of farmers placed fertilizer costs among the top three challenges, followed by energy costs (47%), price and income volatility (37%), and the cost of crop protection (36%). The importance of fertilizer costs becomes most apparent in Kenya, India, and Ukraine. In Ukraine, 70% of farmers named fertilizer costs as one of the top three challenges, showing that the concrete materialized consequences of the war pose big pressures on farmers in the country. In addition, 40% named general disruption due to the war as a top challenge. Apart from that Ukrainian farmers share many of the same characteristics of their global peers, for example more than three-quarters (77%) state that climate change has already largely impacted their farm. Farmers are taking steps to mitigate climate change and value innovation More than 80% of surveyed farmers are already taking or planning to take steps to apply measures that contribute to reducing greenhouse gases. The top focus areas are using cover crops (43% do so already or intend to do so), using renewable energy or biofuels (37%) and using innovative seeds to reduce fertilizer or crop protection use (33%). Alongside this, every single farmer surveyed claims to already apply or plans to apply measures to help biodiversity. Over half (54%) say they already apply measures to protect insects, such as insect hotels, or plan to do so in the next three years. To be ready for the future, farmers value innovation. Over half (53%) of them say access to seeds and traits designed to better cope with extreme weather would most benefit their farm. A similar number (50%) called for better crop protection technology. 42% said that better access to irrigation technology would benefit their farm. Looking at their practices, improving efficient land use, diversifying crops, and better soil health were ranked as the most important routes to success. Spotlight: Indian smallholder farmers are focused on mitigating risk In addition to the global survey where farmers were interviewed independently, Bayer interviewed 2,056 Indian smallholder farmers from its customer base. It is a unique glimpse into the perspectives of smallholders who are key to securing the world's food supply. Currently, their biggest challenges are high labor and fertilizer costs. Yet they are also impacted by climate change: Many of them expect reduced crop yields (42%) and higher pest pressures because of changing weather (31%). Unlike large-scale growers, the smallholders interviewed in India are focused on mitigating risks, prioritizing financial security through insurance (26%) and infrastructure (21%). When asked about the future, 60% said they would benefit most from access to digital technologies and modern crop protection. Despite all the challenges, Indian smallholders remain optimistic: 8 in every 10 farmers feel positive about the future of farming. The survey results are a valuable indicator of smallholder priorities and needs in India, contributing to Bayer’s smallholder farming strategy with the goal to support 100 million smallholders by 2030. In 2022, the company reached 52 million with its products and services. Farmers agree on global challenges Overall, the “Farmer Voice” survey shows that farmers around the world largely share a common view about the challenges of today and the prospects for the future. While there are slight differences between countries, the overarching issues of climate change and economic pressures are of similar concern to all. “Farmers are facing multiple and related challenges. But despite this, we found that they are hopeful – almost three-quarters say they feel positive about the future of farming in their country,” said Rodrigo Santos. “This is impressive and encouraging. The views expressed by farmers in the report need to be widely seen and understood. They are a call to action for the entire food system to innovate, collaborate, and deliver the solutions farmers need – and we as Bayer are eager to play a leading role in these efforts. There is little time to waste.” The Farmer Voice is a survey among 800 farmers equally split between Australia, Brazil, China, Germany, India, Kenya, Ukraine, and the United States. The survey was conducted independently by Kekst CNC. Farmers were selected randomly from each market. The respondents did not know that the survey was being conducted on behalf of Bayer until it was complete, and Bayer had no input on the sample selection. Interviews took place between April and July 2023. Additionally, 2,056 smallholder farmers in India were surveyed with a shortened questionnaire. These farmers were associated with the Better Life Farming ecosystem, farmers of Bayer-supported Farmer Producer Organizations, and farmers enrolled in Bayer’s Sustainable Rice Program. These interviews were conducted between May and June 2023. ]]> https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/90/1014/vietnams-business-potential-in-agri-fisheries-and-key-development-statistics.html https://agrospectrumasia.com/news/90/1014/vietnams-business-potential-in-agri-fisheries-and-key-development-statistics.html Mon, 05 Jun 2023 17:53:00 +0530 Vietnam vigorously focuses on its Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishery industries The Agriculture and Rural Development Ministry reports production and agribusiness reports for May 2023. Agri-commodities According to the department, Vietnam is currently focusing on the cultivation of winter-spring crops in southern localities. Rice, is one of the major staple foods of Vietnam's South East Asian culture, the country cultivated nearly 4,255.8 thousand hectares of rice. The harvest reached 2,589.4 thousand hectares with an average yield of 67.4 quintals/ha, up 1.0 quintals/ha. In summary, the harvested output reached 17.46 million tons. Especially, "winter-spring rice" is another variety of rice in the country with a cultivation rate of 2,952.1 thousand hectares and a harvest of 2,235.5 thousand hectares. However, harvest yield is estimated at 69.2 quintals/ha, an increase of 0.9 quintals/ha; harvested output reached 15.47 million tons. Particularly in the Mekong Delta province (Mekong Delta), 1,478.7 thousand hectares were harvested with a harvest yield of 72.0 quintals/ha, up 1.2 quintals/ha; harvested output reached about 10.7 million tons. "Summer-Autumn Rice" has been cultivated up to 1,303.7 thousand hectares, 1,030.7 thousand hectares in the Mekong Delta alone. Among the other high yielding and well cultivated crops in Vietnam, are pulses and grains. Vietnam reports planting 417.3 thousand hectares of corn, 49.3 thousand hectares of sweet potatoes, 12.6 thousand hectares of soybeans, and 111.3 thousand hectares of groundnuts. Particularly, vegetables and legumes 637.3 thousand hectares. Animal husbandry By May 2023, cattle and poultry farming developed steadily in Vietnam. However, the epidemic still has many potential risks of outbreak, the risk of influenza virus strains and other epidemics infecting from abroad; the price of animal feed remains high, the smuggling of livestock products; Meanwhile, prices of livestock products remain low. As of May, the buffalo herd decreased by about 2%, the cow herd increased by 1.2%, the pig herd increased by 2.6%, and the poultry herd increased by 1.3%. As of May 23, the whole country had 01 outbreak of Blue Ear in Cao Bang; 03 outbreaks of avian influenza in Quang Ngai and Hanoi; there are 02 FMD outbreaks in Thai Nguyen and Gia Lai; there were 17 outbreaks of African swine fever in 08 provinces and cities and 09 outbreaks of dermatitis in Thai Nguyen, Quang Binh and Quang Ngai in less than 21 days. In the first five months of the year, the number of cattle and poultry killed and culled was about 17,438 animals (12,789 poultry and 4,649 cattle). Forestry During the month, localities continue to plant forests, monitor, protect, and prevent forest fires, and have stable logging activities. In May, the country cultivated 69 million seedlings by planting 18.3 thousand hectares of forest. The amount of timber harvested is estimated at 1,956 thousand cubic meters (m3). Accumulation In 5 months, the whole country prepared over 558 million trees and planted 85.6 thousand hectares of forest. This was followed by an estimated timber production of 6,583.3 thousand m3. Forest fire prevention and control are being prioritized in Vietnam, especially in high-risk areas like the Northwest and Central Highlands. The National Forestry Planning Report and the Report explaining opinions of National Appraisal Council members are being improved by Vietnam. Fisheries Fishing tends to increase again because gasoline prices are gradually stabilizing. Aquaculture production in May 2023 was estimated at 783.3 thousand tons and the production for 2023 upuntil has reached 3,420.3 thousand tons. In May, aquaculture output was estimated at 421 thousand tons with an estimate of 1,837.2 thousand tons for the year 2023 up until. It includes species like pangasius 632 thousand tons, shrimp 329.3 thousand tons, and white shrimp 213.1 thousand tons. In Vietnam, aquatic resources are being protected from exploitation. ]]>