Countries must make policies to mitigate crisis from tariff wars: Nigerian farm scientist Ademola Adenle
Prof. Adenle said global agriculture was facing a lot of challenges such as land degradation, climate change, poverty, water scarcity etc. and technology was going to play a big role in fighting these problems. He said destruction of food systems during conflicts, war and trade imbalance and other factors were leading to supply chain disruptions, price hikes, shortages, and instability in local and global markets. 'The most important aspect of that is to look at the policy, at the national, regional and international level,' he said.
Trade imbalance
Terming the recent tariffs announced by United States President Donald Trump as a manifestation of trade imbalance, Prof. Adenle said Mr. Trump was increasing tariffs by 20 to 50% on some countries. 'If you don't have an existing policy that addresses long-time effect of tariffs, that is being imposed by another country, then it becomes a problem. It becomes a crisis. You must have a very comprehensive policy that mitigates effects of other policies from other countries. Otherwise, the response will be retaliatory — doing the same thing. I don't know whether it is the best approach,' he said, maintaining that governments were not doing enough to improve the quality of farmer within the system. 'The quality problem has to be addressed and you have to have a policy that discourages import.'
Prof. Adenle suggested that to ensure nutritional quality, India needed bio-fortified crops. 'It doesn't necessarily have to be genetically modified. Improved varieties can address nutritional problems. You have to preserve those traditional crops and improve them,' he said, pointing out that by 2050, the agriculture production was being projected to increase by 70% to meet the demands of growing population and there was a need to invest in research and development programmes to adopt new technology. 'If you are not investing in R&D, it will be difficult to compete with China, United States, and some European countries, because some of these countries have invested a lot of money in various programmes such as AI, genome editing, modern bio-technology, including GMO,' Prof. Adenle said. Policies prescribed by multilateral agencies of the United Nations and global banks should be aligned with the interest of national development of individual countries to achieve the overall objective of agricultural production.
He said the GMO was quite controversial and it had a lot of advantages and it had potential risks too. 'It can reduce the amount of chemicals. However, there are concerns about biosafety, ecological impacts and market control. That is why it is important to work with the local researcher. The regulations are very important. We came up with the idea of F3 approach, which is fibre, feed, and food. The idea of fibre started with cotton for textile production; it is not for consumption. Then you move on to feed. If the GM feed, after all necessary risk assessment, is safe for animals, then you move on to GM food. F3 framework is to allay concerns of farmers that GM products are actually good for human consumption,' Prof. Adenle said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
16 minutes ago
- First Post
Can Russia occupy parts of Ukraine the way Israel occupies West Bank?
Russia has reportedly proposed taking military and economic control of areas it has occupied in Ukraine – a scheme that would mirror Israel's approach to the West Bank. The proposal was put forth in a meeting between US envoy Steve Witkoff and Russian representatives. But what do we know about such a plan? Russian President Vladimir Putin welcomes US President Donald Trump's Special Envoy Steve Witkoff during a meeting in Moscow, Russia. The proposal was said to be made in meeting between Witoff and Russian officials. Reuters Is Russia planning to emulate Israel's plan in the West Bank? There are reports that Russia has proposed doing so to the United States in a meeting between US envoy Steve Witkoff and Russian representatives. The report comes ahead of the meeting between US President Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday. It also comes after Trump held a call with several European leaders including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who will not take part in the summit. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD But what do we know about the proposal? Let's take a closer look: What we know about proposal Russia's proposal mirrors Israel's plan in the West Bank. Moscow under this scheme would take military and economic control of areas it has occupied in Ukraine. However, these areas would be run by a separate governing body. 'The answer to Ukraine's territorial question is already in the constitution of Ukraine,' the Ukrainian president said in a Saturday video statement on Telegram. 'Ukrainians will not gift their land to the occupier.' However, such a plan would theoretically allow Ukraine to retain its formal sovereignty – thereby providing a legal workaround to Ukraine's Constitution, which mandates holding a national referendum when it comes to ceding territory. Witkoff, who is also Trump's envoy to West Asia, is said to back this plan. Thus far, Trump has been focused on a 'land swap' as a way of resolving the war – on which he has received pushback from Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelenskyy and European leaders. 'It'll just be like Israel occupies the West Bank,' an unnamed source with ties to the US National Security Council (NSC) told The Times. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'With a governor, with an economic situation that goes into Russia, not Ukraine. But it'll still be Ukraine, because … Ukraine will never give up its sovereignty. But the reality is it'll be occupied territory and the model is Palestine,' the source added. It remains unclear if the plan calls for Ukraine to get back the territory at some point. The Trump administration has decried this report as fake news. 'This is total fake news and sloppy reporting by The Times, which clearly has terrible sources. Nothing of the sort was discussed with anyone at any point,' White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly said. Volodymyr Zelenskyy has previously said that there is no question of Ukraine handing over its territory to Russia. However, their previous words point to something else entirely. The Trump administration has repeatedly said that Ukraine expecting to get back its land from Russia is 'unrealistic'. US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth in February said, 'We must start by recognising that returning to Ukraine's pre-2014 borders is an unrealistic objective. Chasing this illusionary goal will only prolong the war and cause more suffering'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In May, US Senior Director for Counterterrorism Sebastian Gorka, said 'the Trump administration lives in the real world.' 'We recognise the reality on the ground,' he added. 'No. 1, that's the beginning because we're not utopianists and we're not human engineers. We're not some kind of pie-in-the-sky believers in utopia.' 'We recognize the reality on the ground and we have one priority above all else, whether it's the Middle East or whether it's Ukraine. It's to stop the bloodshed. Everything else comes after the bloodshed has been halted.' However, European leaders have repeatedly said that Ukraine needs to be part of any peace process and no talks about land being handed over can occur for a ceasefire without Kyiv. A number of European leaders during the call yesterday with Trump and Zelenskyy said the goal was to get a ceasefire between Russia and the Ukraine. They said the ceasefire is simply a first step and that Ukraine needs to play any part in a peace deal. They also said Europe's concerns must be taken into account. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'We have made it clear that Ukraine will be at the table as soon as there is a follow-up meeting,' German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told reporters in Berlin alongside Zelenskyy. ' President Trump wants to make a ceasefire a priority,' he added. Any territorial exchange in Ukraine 'must only be discussed with Ukraine', French President Macron added after the call. 'Trump was very clear on the fact that the US wants to obtain a ceasefire at this meeting in Alaska,' Macron said. 'We must continue to support Ukraine, and when I say 'we', I mean Europeans and Americans,' he added. 'We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force,' the leaders said in a statement on Saturday. 'The current line of contact should be the starting point of negotiations.' The West Bank Israel seized the West Bank from Jordan during the 1967 war – also known as the Six- Day War when it fought and defeated its neighbours Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. The land lies to Israel's east – on the West Bank of the River Jordan from which it gets its name – spans 5,628 square kilometres. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD It is surrounded by Israel to its north, west and south. It also borders Jerusalem – which houses sites sacred to Muslims, Christians and Jews and is a flashpoint for internal violence. While the West Bank is home to millions of Palestinians, it is also home to nearly half a million Israeli Jews. Israel over the years has built 'settlements' on the West Bank. Many of these have sprung up under the Benjamin Netanyahu regime, which has made their construction 'a priority'. Israel seized the West Bank from Jordan during the 1967 war – also known as the Six- Day War when it fought and defeated its neighbours Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. AFP However, the settlements remain illegal under international law. Even the United States, a staunch ally of Israel, does not recognise the legality of these settlements. The International Court of Justice ruled in July that the occupation of the West Bank was illegal and said that it violated Palestinians' right to self-determination. It said Israeli policy in the territories constituted 'systemic discrimination' based on religion, race or ethnic origin, and that Israel had already effectively annexed large parts of the territory. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD With inputs from agencies
Indian Express
16 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Israel's Smotrich approves settlement splitting East Jerusalem from West Bank
Israeli far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich approved plans overnight for a settlement that would split East Jerusalem from the occupied West Bank, a move his office said would bury the idea of a Palestinian state. It was not immediately clear if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu backed the plan to revive the long-frozen E1 scheme, which Palestinians and world powers have said would effectively lop the West Bank in two and will likely draw international ire. Israel had frozen construction plans there since 2012 because of objections from the United States, European allies and other world powers who considered the project a threat to any future peace deal with the Palestinians. There was no immediate statement from Netanyahu or the broader government. Smotrich's popularity has fallen in recent months with polls showing his party would not win a single seat if parliamentary elections were held today. The E1 project would connect the Maale Adumin settlement in the West Bank with Jerusalem. Most of the international community views Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and its military occupation over the region since 1967, as illegal. Peace Now, which tracks settlement activity in the West Bank, said that the housing ministry had approved the construction of 3,300 homes in Maale Adumin. 'The E1 plan is deadly for the future of Israel and for any chance of achieving a peaceful two-state solution. We are standing at the edge of an abyss, and the government is driving us forward at full speed,' Peace Now said in a statement. The group said there were still steps needed before construction, including the approval of Israel's High Planning Council. But if all went through, infrastructure work could begin within a few months, and house building in about a year, it added. Critics of the E1 project say it would split the West Bank, cut off East Jerusalem, which Palestinians want to be their future capital, and make a contiguous Palestinian state impossible. Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand imposed sanctions in June on Smotrich and another far-right minister who advocates for settlement expansion, accusing both of them of repeatedly inciting violence against Palestinians in the West Bank. Britain and other states have said that Israel must stop expanding settlements in the West Bank. Over the past 22 months, as Israel has waged war in Gaza, rights groups have said settler attacks and settlement expansion in the West Bank has risen sharply.
Mint
24 minutes ago
- Mint
Barry Eichengreen: Trump's trade offensive echoes Thatcher's Falklands War
Next Story Barry Eichengreen Quick surrenders abound. China, Brazil and Canada may have stood firm, but it's a surprise how many US trade partners have taken Trump's trade aggression lying down. The EU's case glares out. Did it calculate that tit-for-tat tariffs would be self-damaging? Something that US President Donald Trump's trade war and Thatcher's Falklands War have in common is their utility in distracting attention from their instigators' domestic problems. Gift this article US President Donald Trump's trade war resembles nothing so much as UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher's Falklands War in 1982: one side deploys massive force and the other withdraws with its tail between its legs. Of 57 countries and territories included in Trump's 'Liberation Day' list of targets for 'reciprocal' tariffs, just three—Brazil, Canada and China—credibly threatened retaliation. US President Donald Trump's trade war resembles nothing so much as UK prime minister Margaret Thatcher's Falklands War in 1982: one side deploys massive force and the other withdraws with its tail between its legs. Of 57 countries and territories included in Trump's 'Liberation Day' list of targets for 'reciprocal' tariffs, just three—Brazil, Canada and China—credibly threatened retaliation. The Heard and McDonald Islands, populated only by penguins, were understandably supine. But it is more than a little surprising that so many others have taken US aggression lying down. Also Read: The EU needn't have yielded to the US on a trade deal The European Commission's agreement with the US is especially stunning. It has accepted Trump's 15% baseline tariff, with exemptions only for aircraft parts, critical minerals and a couple of other items. US duties on steel, copper and aluminium remain at 50%. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has pledged that Europe will buy additional US energy and invest $600 billion in the US. In return, the EU receives basically nothing, only a US promise not to impose still higher tariffs, at least for now. Moreover, the deal enhances US exporters' access to European markets, while Europe's exporters face additional barriers in the US. The outcome is widely seen as a sign of the EU's weakness. The Commission had to negotiate an agreement on behalf of 27 countries with different positions on how aggressively Europe should respond. In France, there was considerable support for the idea that it was important to face down a bully. In Germany, by contrast, policy was shaped by automotive and machinery industries desperate to retain access to the US market on terms at least not grossly inferior to those obtained by Japan, South Korea and the UK. These differences left the Commission with little wiggle room. Then there is the fact that the EU continues to rely on the US for weaponry and that it needs America's help in supporting Ukraine. Europe likewise lacks a pressure point analogous to China's control of rare earth refining, which allows the Chinese government to threaten retaliation by cutting off an essential input required by US high-tech industries and by the country's defence complex. Finally, like other economies contemplating how to respond, Europe faces a 'madman' problem. Normally, the strongest argument for retaliating is to deter further aggression. A rational leader will understand that launching a trade war, much like launching a conventional war, will provoke a counter-attack in which his country suffers as much as his opponent's. But then, this strategy works only when leaders are rational. Trump's trade-policy decisions are clearly guided by an irrational belief in tariffs—'the most beautiful word in the dictionary," as he puts it—and by the perverse satisfaction he derives from punishing opponents and even allies, regardless of the costs borne by the US itself. Negotiators, not only in Europe, had good reason to fear that Trump would meet retaliation with retaliation, resulting in further damage. Also Read: Mint Explainer: Why does the EU keep sanctioning Russia? There is, however, a contrary view that Europe has shown strength, not weakness. Meeting tariffs with tariffs, especially when these have no deterrent effect, is simply a way of shooting oneself in the economic foot. Higher import prices fuel inflation and thus hurt consumers, while taxing imported inputs, as the US is doing, makes domestic production more costly and less efficient. At the same time, less import competition encourages rent seeking: domestic producers will lobby for tariff concessions and make campaign contributions to obtain them. Thus, Europe has shown its wisdom in shunning self-destructive measures. It now needs to follow up by ratifying its free trade agreement with Latin America's Mercosur bloc, solidifying its trade relations with China and recommitting itself to the multilateral trading system, whether the US participates or not. Something else that Trump's trade war and Thatcher's Falklands War have in common is their utility in distracting attention from their instigators' domestic problems—in Thatcher's case an unemployment crisis and in Trump's the questions about his ties with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who hanged himself while awaiting trial on federal sex-trafficking charges. Helped by her victory in the South Atlantic, Margaret Thatcher would reign for eight more years. The US Constitution prevents Trump from serving as president until 2033. Or so we are led to believe. ©2025/Project Syndicate The author is professor of economics and political science at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author, most recently, of 'In Defense of Public Debt' Topics You May Be Interested In Catch all the Business News, Market News, Breaking News Events and Latest News Updates on Live Mint. Download The Mint News App to get Daily Market Updates.
