#agriculture sector reforms

[farmerstrend]

Vaccination or Exploitation? Why Rift Valley Farmers Are Rejecting Livestock Vaccination Plans

“Discover why Rift Valley dairy farmers are opposing the government’s mandatory livestock vaccination campaign, citing concerns over misplaced priorities and economic challenges.” “Rift Valley farmers resist livestock vaccination drive, urging the government to focus on critical issues like healthcare, milk prices, and agricultural reforms.” “Explore the growing debate between Rift Valley farmers…

[mariamagdalenaposting]

Thinking about that Skyrim meme that was like "Siding with the Imperials in the Skyrim Civil War because there is no way this agrarian society will industrialize under feudalism"

[gurggggleburgle]

Ya know as much as it would be funny to watch Qinghua have to introduce the concept of democracy and socialist reforms to his own porn world I think the funnier answer is that man just straight up is like ya'll are literally too stupid to understand the importance of the agriculture sector and epa and the financial system. I'm not letting you vote. I'm a cultivator and I will outlast you all to the best of my ability as I become the benevolent dictator introducing ubi and welfare programs and none of you will stop me.

And Mobei-Jun is a supportive husband so he just let's him because he's learned that Qinghua is far better at politics than he will ever be and he's more than happy to sit and look pretty (read terrifying)

[loving-n0t-heyting]

so there are a bunch of racists for whom mugabes greatest crime in the (eventual) implementation of radical land reform without compensation was the killing of several white farmers (and, if our interlocutor is willing to grant that their lives might matter, too, their largely black farmhands) in the process. i wont disagree that this was pretty bad; it should definitely feature in any list of of "the crimes of robert mugabe." but by far the greater crime in the reform efforts, i would think, is that the farmland was in the main transferred to small landholders with minimal training or ability to maintain the farms at their previous levels of efficiency, leading to mass famine and death for the native population. this bane to the ppl of zimbabwe, frankly, seems a lot more serious of a crime than orders of magnitude fewer dead directly in the confrontations involved in the seizure

now, if our racist objector is of an anticommunist bent (as many are!) and is particularly stupid/disingenuous (same!), the mass deaths resulting from this downgrade in agricultural productivity will likely be chalked up as another "crime of communism" typical of commie efforts at revolutionary agricultural transformation. the obvious intended points of comparison being, ofc, the great leap forward and collectivisation of farming in the early soviet union, in spite of the fact that these were (profoundly regrettable, frequently to the point of virtually criminal) consequences of the INDUSTRIALISATION and MODERNISATION of the chinese and soviet agricultural sectors, respectively, ie the complete opposite of the industrial retrogression seen under mugabe. these were not the birth pangs of the society of the future, they were the considerably less excusable pangs of a newborn deciding it didnt like the look of the outside world and doing its best to crawl back to the warm comfort of the womb

but what is really striking is that among those who will agree with our racists fundamental objection to the nature of post-2000 zibabwe land reform is... julius malema, head of the marxist leninist "economic freedom fighters" party in south africa, whose response when his (very similar) stated land reform and agricultural ambitions are compared to mugabes is basically that his goals (the ones that struck nearly half the population of zimbabwe with hunger) were noble but his methods (which killed maybe 300) were inexcusable. strange bedfellows!

[probablyasocialecologist]

If Ugandans have a social safety net, it is woven from banana fibers, and if there is a clear path to socialism, it will be lined with banana leaves. The lusuku model, premised on intercropping and smallholder farming, could be the basis for national agrarian reform that improves the lives of Uganda’s agricultural workers without accelerating the destruction of the natural environment. Uganda faces increasing difficulty feeding itself because of climate extremes and land degradation, and this affects farmers more significantly than anyone else. Moreover, since the 1990s, the ruling National Resistance Movement regime sold off and dismantled most of the coffee, tea, and cotton growers cooperatives, leaving smallholder farmers in the hands of the predatory middlemen which cooperatives had been established to protect them against. Unable to collectively bargain and exposed to dramatic fluctuations in the market prices for cash crops, many people left rural areas to search for employment in cities. This has been a driving force behind the massive inequality between rural and urban workers. Ugandans now produce more food than they consume, even exporting to other countries in the region, yet 41% of people are undernourished, and agricultural production has decreased over the last 20 years. For the most part, the strategy pursued by Uganda’s government has been to encourage the development of ecologically disastrous intensive agriculture for export, privileging foreign investors rather than developing the infrastructure that would benefit peasants. Indeed, while more than 70% of Ugandans are employed in agriculture, the sector only receives around 4% of public investment, and projects aimed at helping smallholder farmers have had very little success, even by their own standards. Many of the government’s investments in agriculture very clearly advantage larger landowners, to the detriment of the poorest farmers. For example, most of the government’s investment in labor-saving technologies has been spent on tractors, which are great for large plots but largely unaffordable or unsuitable for the average farmer, whose plot is usually between 1-3 acres large. However, a socialist transition premised on agroecological reforms could make use of the existing lusuku model to create the kind of growth that actually improves poor farmers’ lives without destroying their environment. This could begin with reestablishing cooperatives and engineering agricultural prices around social needs and goals, like guaranteeing access to food. Research from around the world has shown that while large, monocrop plantations are good at producing huge volumes of one crop, smallholder farms are more productive when evaluated on a per-unit area and are capable of securing national food sovereignty. Why, for example, should Ugandans buy rice imported from Pakistan or Vietnam when banana intercropping yields more calories per hectare than rice? Lusukus could feed the nation without relying on foreign experts, development aid, or the capital-intensive inputs now being imported to grow for export. Because lusukus are far better for the soil, they also improve the nation’s capacity to resist severe floods and drought, effects of climate change that hit poor farmers hardest. In these ways, the lusuku model could provide a sustainable path to socialist development.

[lovehael]

Foreign Aid as a Weapon

Most U.S. aid commits the recipient nation to buy U.S. goods at U.S. prices, to be transported in U.S. ships. In keeping with its commitment to capitalism, the U.S. government does not grant assistance to state-owned enterprises in Third World nations, only to the private sector. Most foreign aid never reaches the needy segments of recipient nations. Much of it is used to subsidize U.S. corporate investment and a substantial amount finds its way into the coffers of corrupt comprador rulers. Some of it subsidizes the cash-crop exports of agribusinesses at the expense of small farmers who grow food for local markets.

The net result of foreign aid, as with most overseas investment, is a greater concentration of wealth for the few and deeper poverty for the many. A large sum of money cannot be injected into a class society in a class-neutral way. It goes either to the rich or the poor, in most cases, the rich.

Aid is also a powerful means of political control. It is withheld when poorer nations dare to effect genuine reforms that might tamper with the distribution of wealth and power. Thus in 1970 when the democratically elected Allende government in Chile initiated reforms that benefited the working class and encroached upon the privileges of wealthy investors, all U.S. aid was cut off- except assistance to the Chilean military, which was increased. In some instances, aid is used deliberately to debilitate local production, as when Washington dumped sorghum and frozen chickens onto the Nicaraguan market to undercut cooperative farms and undermine land reform, or when it sent corn to Somalia to undercut local production and cripple independent village economies. It should be remembered that these corporate agricultural exports are themselves heavily subsidized by the U.S. government.

A key instrument of class-biased aid is the World Bank, an interlocking, international consortium of bankers and economists who spend billions of dollars- much of it from U.S taxpayers- to finance projects that shore up repressive right-wing regimes and subsidize corporate investors at the expense of the poor and the environment. For instance, in the 1980s the World Bank built a highway into northwest Brazil's rain forests, then leveled millions of acres so that wealthy Brazilian ranchers could enjoy cheap grazing lands. Brazil also sent some of its urban poor down that highway to settle the land and further deplete it. Within ten years, the region was denuded and riddled with disease and poverty. As Jim Hightower put it: "All the world's bank robbers combined have not done one-tenth of one percent of the harm that the World Bank has in just fifty years."

Against Empire by Michael Parenti

[rjzimmerman]

Wheat on repeat (Anthropocene Magazine)

Excerpt from this story from Anthropocene Magazine:

Disguised within an ordinary-looking bowl of pasta before me is a brand new ingredient, 20-years in the making, that many believe could single-handedly slash emissions, store carbon in the soil, and help the wider environment.

The neat fusilli coils contain flour ground from Kernza, a perennial wheat-like crop that produces multiple harvests from one plant, year after year after year. I received some cooking instructions to get the best out of the novel ingredient: “Don’t cover it up with a bunch of sauce! Make sure you can taste it,” says Lee DeHaan, a scientist at The Land Institute, a non-profit agriculture research organization based in Salina, Kansas, that developed the Kernza grain. I follow his guidance, drizzling in a little olive oil and a pinch of salt, and then take a bite, letting the pasta’s flavors emerge: a subtle but unmistakable hint of cinnamon, followed by nutmeg. It’s unexpectedly warm and earthy, like a salute to the rich Kansas soils that Kernza first sprouted from.

The way this crop was raised there was very different to its cousin, conventional wheat. Wheat is an annual crop, like rice and corn, which together account for almost half of the calories humanity consumes. Annuals must be planted and harvested anew each year, a system that requires farmers to heap fertilizers and herbicides onto the land, dispersed by gas-guzzling machinery that bloats agriculture’s carbon footprint. Meanwhile, repeated cycles of tilling and replanting strips the soil of nutrients, and loses vital topsoil to wind and rain. Over time, those soils may degrade, pushing farmers onto new land in search of fertile ground. 

Each mouthful of this Kernza-rich pasta, on the other hand, supports farming that locks topsoil in place and stores carbon in the earth. A growing movement of researchers, farmers, and producers believe that perennial crops have unmatched potential to reform agriculture’s warped system, and are pinning their hopes—and research dollars—on the likes of Kernza to deliver that. The grain is now cultivated across 4,000 acres of land, by over 100 farmers across the US Midwest and as far afield as Sweden and France. Its distinct aromas have made their way into craft beers, cereals, crackers, and whiskey, and have been embraced by major brands such as Patagonia. 

As a potential substitute for wheat, which covers more global land area than any other commercial crop, Kernza seems to herald a wholesome, low-carbon revolution in the vast agricultural sector. And yet 15 years since the first stands took root, the crop has only managed to capture a tiny fraction of the market, a victim of limited yields, government regulation, and a conservative farming industry. So can Kernza ever displace traditional amber waves of grain, or is it doomed to be a perennial runner-up? 

[opencommunion]

"In accordance with the program of their 1968 second congress, the Lebanese communists considered Lebanon as a capitalist country with bourgeois relations of production prevailing in most sectors, including agriculture. But in spite of its relatively advanced level of development in the region, Lebanon still remained dependent on foreign capital: it was a country with distorted social and economic structures, with the service sector dominant over the main and vitally needed productive sectors. According to the congress, the attempted reforms by the big bourgeoisie forces were doomed to failure because 'they did not get at the root and main causes of the crisis: the supremacy of the financial oligarchy, which fully controlled the economic and political destiny of the country, and the dependence of the Lebanese economy on neocolonialism.'

The necessary task ahead was therefore to 'establish national democratic power and complete the stage of the general democratic struggle, preparing the ground for the transition to socialism.' The party called for setting up 'a national democratic regime representing the alliance of the workers, peasants, urban petty bourgeoisie, revolutionary intellectuals and those sections of the middle bourgeoisie linked with domestic industrial and agricultural production.' If it gained power, such a regime would liquidate the assets of foreign (predominantly American) monopoly capital, nationalize the holdings of Lebanese financial capital, establish a public sector assuming control of foreign trade, develop the industrial sector, and enact farreaching agrarian reforms." Tareq Y. Ismael and Jacqueline S. Ismael, The Communist Movement in Syria and Lebanon (1998)

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Cecilia Nowell at The Guardian:

When Project 2025 began making headlines this summer, it was largely for the ways the conservative “wish list” of policies for a future Trump administration would restructure the entire federal bureaucracy, deepen abortion restrictions and eliminate the Department of Education.

But the document – a proposed mandate for the next Republican president authored by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative thinktank – also outlines steps that would radically transform food and farming, curtailing recent progress to address the excess of ultra-processed foods in the United States. Among those: weakening the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), ending policies that consider the effects of climate change – and eliminating the US dietary guidelines. “This is a deregulatory agenda,” said Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition and food policy at New York University. “And what we know historically from deregulation is that it’s really bad for consumers, it’s bad for workers, it’s bad for the environment.”

Project 2025 proposes changes to the country’s food assistance programs, like Snap and the Women, Infants and Children supplemental nutrition program (Wic), that Nestle believes are intended to dismantle such programs. It also calls for ending support for school meals. But one of the most notable of its proposals is calling on the next Republican president to eliminate or reform the dietary guidelines. Those guidelines form the basis for all federal food policies, from school meals to Snap, Wic and other programs.

“There is no shortage of private-sector dietary advice for the public, and nutrition and dietary choices are best left to individuals to address their personal needs,” the document reads. The food industry has long pushed the idea that chronic, diet-related health conditions, like diabetes and obesity, are the result of individual choices – like not exercising enough. Today, nearly 42% of adults in the US are obese and about 12% have diabetes. But nutritionists emphasize that those conditions are not the result of a moral failing, but rather conditions caused by the ingredients and policies (like aggressively advertising to children) pushed by food companies. Nestle sees that as one of many pro-business policies outlined in Project 2025’s agricultural provisions that trusts companies to prioritize public health over profit. “There’s twice as many calories available in the food supply as the country needs on average. So the food industry is enormously competitive in selling calories,” she said. “Republicans want to deregulate, and give those food businesses every opportunity to make as much money as they possibly can, regardless of the effects on health and the environment.” Experts also fear the way Project 2025 could undermine the work being done by the Food and Drug Administration and the Department of Agriculture to limit the flow of ultra-processed foods in the US food supply.

Today, ultra-processed foods make up 73% of the US food supply, according to Northeastern University, and provide the average US adult with more than 60% of their daily calories. While the science is still emerging, researchers are increasingly linking UPFs to a range of health conditions including diabetes, obesity, depression and certain cancers. At the FDA, work is currently under way to develop a front-of-package label that corporations would be required to print on the fronts of products indicating when an item is high in sugar, fats, sodium or calories (the exact label has not yet been made public). Although the label wouldn’t specifically indicate when a food is ultra-processed, it would likely apply to a high percentage of UPFs in the food system because many contain large quantities of those nutrients.

Warning to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and co. who are backing Donald Trump on the basis that he would clean up the food supply: Project 2025 calls for rollbacks that would limit the tools needed to fight against ultra-processed foods.

[archacovercosine]

had to miss the hearings held last afternoon and this morning, so here's some relevant bits from the coverage:

on agriculture, Christophe Hansen took a mostly right-wing stance on animal farming, claiming that a decrease in livestock is "unnecessary" and that the agriculture sector is only 11% of emissions anyway.

He also came out mostly in favor of the status quo on CAP, although the subsidy disparity between west and east was mentioned as very important.

Similar to Sefcovic yesterday, strong support for the Mercosur agreement and the allowance of Ukraine goods into the EU, both points that are also facing oppositon from farmers.

Personally, would have liked to see those stances flipped: an agricultural reform is really needed, but it's not looking like a emission or pesticide decrease is going to happen like this.

[centrally-unplanned]

Hi! I liked your post about the economic situation of rural China in recent history. I was wondering if you could explain this a bit more, or point me to another post that explains it: “even ignoring that the whole ‘poverty’ thing is 90% tech level and there was no amount of redistribution that was going to improve that very much”

Sure! Its hard to point to anything beyond like "GPD figures", but that can at least be illustrative:

In China at the dawn of the 20th century, the country was poor because compared to countries today China (like everyone in the past) was always poor. People worked to produce output (food, tools, houses, etc) and that level of output was really low, because the technology of production was primitive. There is a big complex question as to how economic/social relations encourage or discourage the accumulation of better technology for production (lossily known as "capital" in econ speak), but at the fundamental level if you don't have energy plants, and tractors, and cranes, and assembly lines, and machine parts, and shipping vessels, and all of those things, you are just leagues poorer than a modern society inherently. That was China at the time; Chinese farmers just could not make much food for their labor.

The key point is no amount of redistribution could change that - the poor of China were not poor because there was a rich class taking their wealth. If you took 100% of the wealth of the rich and gave it out as an equal check to each citizen of China, you would barely even notice it on a graph like this. The actual econ history is complicated (China's wealth in the 1950's did increase, but not much and that probably has way more to do with the end of the war - war is awful for wealth) but the fundamental point is there. The actual story behind the CCP's Land Reform campaign of ~1949-1954 was complex, and was about more than wealth. But from the perspective of poverty, it just wasn't this big issue for the country. the rural countryside was poor because they needed to upgrade their production methods; they weren't lacking in land to farm.

None of this means that redistribution is therefore bad or anything, even then, don't take it that way - you can be poor and have societal systems make that poverty even worse, and than happened in China for sure. Just that the future of China's agricultural sector lay in technological progress, and the impact of anything else would be swept away by that.

[farmerstrend]

Agricultural Extension Services: The Missing Link in Kenya’s Economic Transformation

Discover how investing in agricultural extension services can drive sustainable economic growth in Kenya, enhance food security, and empower small-scale farmers to thrive. Learn why strengthening agricultural extension services is crucial for revitalizing Kenya’s farming sector and achieving the goals of the Bottom-Up Economic Transformation Agenda. Explore the role of agricultural extension…

[dailyanarchistposts]

The White Revolution: Dictatorship and Uneven Capitalist Development

By joining the pro-western military alliance CENTO (also known as the Baghdad Pact) in 1955, Iran had made itself a key ally in the Western camp. In the early 1960s, the example of the Cuban Revolution led to a shift in the policy of US imperialism. The new Kennedy administration encouraged certain countries to carry out reforms that, it was believed, would promote capitalist development while also undercutting the threat of social revolution. As a result, there was a relative relaxing of the repressive environment, in the midst of which a resurgence of political activity occurred. The outcome was the White Revolution of 1963.

The idea was that by widening the popular base of the regime the state could also disrupt its opposition by incorporating elements of their program. Ironically, it was the results of these reforms that, by opening a period of rapid and uneven capitalist development, most directly set the stage for the Revolution.

Although designed to widen the base of support for the state, the new reforms were met with mass demonstrations that turned violent. The left supported the measures all the while opposing the dictatorial nature of the state, while the clergy were intransigent in their total opposition to the reforms, especially land reform, which threatened its land holdings, but also reforms to the status of women and minorities. The opposition to the reforms brought about a popular uprising led by the clergy (in particular Ayatollah Khomeini) and which was swiftly put down with extreme violence and repression, resulting in many killed and imprisoned. While leftists and democrats had different reasons than the clergy for opposing the regime, the 1963 uprising announced the possibility of some kind of alliance between them. Differences blurred in the name of a united front — in this, it could be seen as a “dress rehearsal” for the 1979 revolution.

The most dramatic policy of the White Revolution was land reform. The land reform program effectively ended feudal relations in Iran and replaced them with capitalist relations. The power of the landlord was replaced with that of the state. Yet it would be wrong to think that the aristocracy was disenfranchised. The feudal landlords still benefited from such developments, provided that they were willing to become capitalists. Landlords that mechanized and hired wage labor, or rented to US agribusiness, were able to keep their estates. Other landlords found ways to hold on to the best quality land while redistributing that of the poorest quality. Aristocrats from the old powerful families were given ministerial positions in trade for supporting the state, and landlords were encouraged to invest in industry.

The great landowning estates were divided and distributed among the peasants with little or no technical assistance. The state then worked to promote large-scale capitalist agricultural production. Many of the former peasants sold their land and moved to the cities. Masses flocked to urban areas in search of work in the state’s construction and industrial projects, while those who stayed behind took jobs in agribusinesses as wage earners, effectively rendering them agricultural proletarians. The whole process took only a decade. In a short span between 1963–1973, the population of Tehran doubled, as the ranks of its working class swelled. These newly proletarianized peasants took up residence in ever-expanding shanty towns, forming a vast army of “urban poor.” Some entered the manufacturing and industrial sector, but many more — when they were able to find employment at all — worked as manual laborers in the ever-expanding construction industry, building skyscrapers and apartment buildings for the rich.

Other reforms also promoted capitalist development. New education initiatives, authoritarian in nature, contributed to the growth of a modern bureaucracy. The furthering of scholarships and opportunities to study abroad created a modern educated middle class, many of whom would soon become politicized. The enfranchisement of women, accompanied by further employment and educational opportunities, also added to this modernizing development. What was missed, or at least underestimated by the regime, was the extent to which all these policies were creating the material basis for a social revolution. Like all development under capitalism, the results were uneven: the country as a whole became more developed, while class differences became more pronounced.

It was during this period that the state began in earnest to push through a radical development program that would transform Iran into a modern capitalist state. The state’s modernization program favored the “comprador bourgeoisie”: government loans were given to large industrialists, many of whom acted as mediators for mostly-American corporations. Meanwhile, the traditional bourgeoisie of the bazaars, who were intimately connected with the clergy by familial relations, and who funds the religious endowments, celebrations, mosques, etc., became increasingly alienated economically, politically, and culturally from the Shah’s regime.

In the years after 1963, a younger generation of activists inspired by the Cuban, Algerian, and Vietnamese examples turned to armed struggle. Of these, the two main groups were the People’s Fediayan Guerillas, who came out of Tudeh and the left-wing of the National Front, and the People’s Mujahideen, who came out of the religious wing of the National Front and cleaved to a left-wing Islamic-populist ideology. Although this period saw the rise of an urban guerilla movement, disruptions among the population generally remained minimal. Worker’s strikes began to resume in the early-1970s but, for the moment at least, the regime was able to keep them from getting out of pocket. This was due not solely to repression (which certainly existed), but to the exceptional growth of the economy, which proved sufficient to keep a sizable part of the middle classes, and a significant number of white and blue collar workers, under control. With the incredible rise of the oil price on the international market, the early 1970s was the height of the Shah’s megalomaniac claim to be transforming Iran into a “Great Civilization.” He did, however, solidify Iran’s position as a regional power and anti-communist force. Under Nixon-Kissinger, the US fully backed the Shah’s regime as the gendarmerie of the Middle East, providing both weapons and political support.[16]

By 1975 the global price of oil had dropped, causing a general slow-down. Optimism about the constantly growing economy began to falter. The government’s attempts to curb inflation only exacerbated public anger by causing a spike in unemployment. In response to the mounting crisis, the state became increasingly dictatorial, arresting a large number of bazaari merchants and further agitating the traditional bourgeoisie and their historic allies, the clergy. From late 1977 onwards, various sectors and classes joined the “popular” movement, until the regime finally alienated the majority of the population. In such a situation the autonomy of the state proved to be a weakness for the regime. The Shah had managed to alienate all classes with the exception of a small comprador ruling circle that included the royal family and the court, top military generals, and the “big bourgeoisie” of industrialists and elite families with ties to multinational corporations.

[rajasthan-political-leader]

Antyodaya Seva Camp Ceremony: Celebrating One Year of BJP Government in Rajasthan

A Year of Transformation and Development

Key Highlights of the Antyodaya Seva Camp Ceremony

1. Celebrating the Spirit of Service

The Antyodaya Seva Camp is more than just an event — it is a symbol of the BJP’s ethos of serving the people.

Focus on Welfare: The ceremony highlighted welfare schemes aimed at healthcare, education, and social security.

Direct Citizen Engagement: Camps facilitated direct interaction between citizens and government officials, ensuring transparency and accountability.

2. Delivering Services to the Grassroots

During the ceremony, beneficiaries shared their experiences with schemes aimed at uplifting the economically and socially weaker sections of society.

Access to Government Schemes: From ration cards to housing assistance, citizens were empowered with necessary resources.

Health and Sanitation Drives: The event also emphasized health services under schemes like Ayushman Bharat and Swachh Bharat Abhiyan.

3. Inauguration of New Initiatives

The ceremony was a platform to launch new schemes aligned with the vision of inclusive governance.

Skill Development Programs: Focused on equipping youth with skills for employment.

Rural Infrastructure Projects: Improved roadways, schools, and healthcare facilities.

Col Rajyavardhan Rathore: A Champion of Grassroots Empowerment

Col Rathore’s Key Messages:

Empowering the Marginalized: He reiterated the government’s focus on uplifting the economically disadvantaged.

Accountability and Transparency: Ensuring every citizen feels the impact of government programs.

Vision for Rajasthan’s Future: Commitment to sustainable growth, job creation, and making Rajasthan a model state.

One Year of BJP Governance: A Look Back

1. Economic Growth and Investment

Industrial Development: Initiatives like the Rising Rajasthan Global Investment Summit have attracted significant investments.

Support for MSMEs: Special incentives for small businesses have strengthened the local economy.

2. Rural Upliftment

Agricultural Reforms: Farmers benefited from subsidies, irrigation projects, and better market access.

Electrification and Connectivity: Infrastructure improvements have transformed rural areas.

3. Focus on Women and Youth Empowerment

Skill Training Programs: Programs like Start-Up Rajasthan have empowered the youth.

Women-Centric Schemes: Initiatives to support education, healthcare, and entrepreneurship among women.

Antyodaya: A Vision for Inclusive Growth

The BJP government’s philosophy of Antyodaya — uplifting the weakest section of society — was at the heart of the ceremony.

Bringing Governance to the Doorstep: By organizing camps at the grassroots level, the government ensured accessibility and inclusivity.

Impact-Oriented Policies: Welfare programs have reached millions, bringing tangible benefits to those in need.

A Year of Service and Progress

The Antyodaya Seva Camp Ceremony marked a celebration of service, progress, and hope for the future. Under the leadership of Col Rajyavardhan Rathore and the BJP government, Rajasthan has seen remarkable growth across sectors. As the state moves forward, the focus remains on empowering every citizen and ensuring that no one is left behind.

The journey of the past year is not just a story of achievements but also a commitment to a brighter and more inclusive Rajasthan.

[colonelrajyavardhanrathore]

Rajasthan: Rising, Reliable, and Refined — PM Modi at the Rising Rajasthan Summit

Rajasthan, a state known for its rich history, vibrant culture, and stunning landscapes, has always been an integral part of India’s development journey. But on December 9, 2024, at the Rising Rajasthan Global Investment Summit, Prime Minister Narendra Modi highlighted that Rajasthan is not only “Rising,” but also Reliable and ever-evolving, constantly refining itself to meet the challenges of the present and future.

In his address at the summit, PM Modi emphasized the state’s transformation and its growing importance as a global investment and tourism hub. He also acknowledged Rajasthan’s ability to adapt and grow in line with modern global dynamics. Let’s break down the key elements of PM Modi’s speech and understand how Rajasthan is carving a path towards a new era of growth and prosperity.

Rajasthan: Rising with Resilience and Potential

Prime Minister Modi aptly described Rajasthan as “Rising,” referring to its exponential growth in various sectors including infrastructure, energy, manufacturing, and tourism. Over the years, the state has made impressive strides in improving its economic landscape, becoming an attractive destination for both national and international investors. With several policy initiatives, including the introduction of investment-friendly reforms and a focus on promoting entrepreneurship, Rajasthan has witnessed a surge in industrial growth.

The state’s initiatives in solar energy, renewable resources, and IT infrastructure are helping Rajasthan claim its space as a leader in sustainable development. Moreover, Rajasthan is emerging as a major contributor to India’s “Atmanirbhar Bharat” vision, with its strong potential in areas like mining, textiles, and agriculture.

Rajasthan: Reliable and Trustworthy for Investments

In his speech, PM Modi highlighted that Rajasthan is not just rising, but it is also “Reliable.” This reliability comes from the state’s stable governance, robust legal framework, and a favorable business environment that assures investors of long-term returns. Rajasthan has successfully attracted global businesses, particularly in sectors such as renewable energy, manufacturing, and tourism, by offering incentives, subsidies, and a business-friendly ecosystem.

The state’s steady growth and the commitment of the government to maintain transparency and ease of doing business make it a trustworthy destination for foreign investments. Rajasthan is becoming a hub for industries looking for a blend of cost-effectiveness, skilled labor, and vast resources, making it a promising investment hotspot.

Rajasthan: Receptive to Change and Refined with Time

One of the most powerful messages from PM Modi’s speech was that Rajasthan is not static; it is “Receptive” to change and continuously refining its systems and infrastructure to stay relevant in a rapidly evolving world. Whether it’s embracing new technologies, improving urban infrastructure, or fostering a culture of innovation, Rajasthan is adapting to global trends while preserving its traditional values.

The state has shown a remarkable ability to blend its ancient heritage with modern development. From digitalizing its administrative processes to modernizing transportation and energy sectors, Rajasthan is learning to innovate while preserving its rich history and culture. The state’s focus on eco-tourism, adventure tourism, and heritage conservation is a prime example of how Rajasthan is keeping pace with the times while offering something unique to global visitors.

Key Focus Areas of the Rising Rajasthan Summit

The Rising Rajasthan Global Investment Summit 2024 provided a platform for government officials, business leaders, and global investors to engage in discussions on various sectors where Rajasthan is poised to excel. PM Modi discussed key focus areas, including:

Renewable Energy — Rajasthan is one of the frontrunners in India’s solar energy revolution, and the state is committed to expanding its renewable energy capacity, making it an energy hub in the country.

Infrastructure Development — With the launch of mega infrastructure projects like the Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor (DMIC), Rajasthan is well-positioned to become a major manufacturing and logistics center in the coming years.

Tourism — Rajasthan’s rich cultural heritage, along with its unique landscapes, makes it an ideal destination for global tourists. PM Modi emphasized the importance of upgrading tourism infrastructure, promoting Rajasthan’s distinctive heritage, and developing newer tourism circuits to further boost the sector.

Agriculture and Agri-Tech — PM Modi also focused on Rajasthan’s agriculture sector, encouraging the state to leverage technology and innovation to improve productivity and create sustainable farming solutions.

Skill Development and Employment — Creating employment opportunities through industrialization, IT development, and tourism, while also focusing on skill development to equip the youth of Rajasthan for the future workforce.

Rajasthan’s Vision for the Future

Rajasthan is showing the world that it is not just a state with a great past, but also one with a bright and dynamic future. Through government initiatives, infrastructural projects, and a thriving business ecosystem, the state is positioning itself as a leading player in India’s growth story.

PM Modi’s speech at the Rising Rajasthan Summit reinforced the idea that Rajasthan is not only “Rising” but is also a reliable and refined state, receptive to new ideas and ever-evolving to meet the demands of the 21st century. With a combination of rich heritage, modern innovation, and sustainable development, Rajasthan is ready to play a central role in India’s economic transformation.

The Rising Rajasthan Global Investment Summit 2024 has not only showcased the state’s development achievements but also highlighted the immense potential Rajasthan holds for the future. As PM Modi rightly put it, Rajasthan is “Rising, Reliable, and Refined,” and with continued focus on innovation, infrastructure, and sustainability, the state is well on its way to becoming a global leader in investment, tourism, and economic growth.

Rajasthan’s journey is a testament to how a state can honor its traditions while embracing modernity, and this balance will ensure that the “Land of Kings” remains a force to reckon with on the global stage.

[notwiselybuttoowell]

Hundreds of lobbyists for industrial agriculture are attending the Cop29 climate summit in Baku, analysis shows.

They include representatives from some of the world’s largest agribusiness companies including the Brazilian meatpacker JBS, the animal pharmaceuticals company Elanco, and the food giant PepsiCo, as well as trade groups representing the food sector.

Overall, 204 agriculture delegates have accessed the talks this year, analysis by DeSmog and the Guardian reveals. While the total number has dropped compared with the record highs at Cop28, the figures show climate Cops remain a top priority for businesses working in agriculture, a sector that accounts for up to a third of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Food sector lobbyists remain highly influential, and have travelled to Baku as part of country delegations from Brazil, Russia and Australia, among others. This year, nearly 40% of delegates travelled to the summit with country badges, giving them privileged access to diplomatic negotiations, up from 30% at Cop28, and just 5% at Cop27.

Delegates from the meat and dairy sector sent 52 delegates to the summit this year, with 20 travelling with Brazil’s government, the analysis found. They outnumbered the delegation of the Caribbean island of Barbados, which in July was devastated by Hurricane Beryl, a disaster linked to climate breakdown.

Meat and dairy producers are coming under greater scrutiny due to increasing pollution from cattle and sheep, which emit about a third of the global output of methane. Farming also relies on synthetic fertilisers that are both fossil fuel-based and emit greenhouse gases, and drive deforestation.

But while studies point to the need for a drastic drop in meat and dairy production and a shift to climate-friendly farming, the agribusiness industry has lobbied hard against tougher environmental laws, in the EU, the US and at climate summits.

An Lambrechts, a senior campaign strategist from Greenpeace International, said there was a clear “conflict of interest” between big agriculture’s presence at the talks and the need for climate action.

“We see the same conflict of interest with the fossil fuel industry and how they act to drive the world away from the scope of actions and solutions that are needed to fight climate change and address its impacts,” she said.

Brazil, the host of next year’s climate summit, was a major funnel for agricultural giants this year. That has sparked concerns over the sway agribusiness may hold over Cop30, which many see as an opportunity for ambitious food systems reform.

The Brazilian government brought in 35 agriculture lobbyists, including more than 20 representatives of the meat companies JBS, BRF and Marfrig, as well as powerful industry groups such as the Association of Brazilian Beef Exporters.