By Athar Parvaiz
SRINAGAR, India, Feb 7 2024 – Saffron, the expensive spice from the Kashmir Himalayas, has been facing challenges for years, mostly related to yields and inadequate irrigation compounded by the climate crisis.

While the government launched the 4.1 billion rupee National Saffron Mission (NMS) in 2010 to mitigate these challenges and rejuvenate saffron cultivation in Kashmir, its efficacy remains questionable, farmers say.

Saffron is one of Kashmir’s major industries, along with horticulture and agriculture, supporting some 17,000 families in the region. India contributes 5% of the world’s total production, of which 90% is supplied from the Kashmir Himalayan region.

The spice has been cultivated since 500 AD in the Kashmir valley and reached its peak in the 1990s at an annual average yield of around 15.5 tonnes from 5,700 hectares (14,085 acres), but both the land farmed for saffron and yields have declined since then.

According to a study, prolonged periods of drought have caused significant concerns among saffron farmers.

“Since the crop heavily relies on rainfall, insufficient precipitation has resulted in the region experiencing its lowest saffron productivity in the past three decades,” the study says.

“In addition to the challenges posed by drought, the region is also facing issues related to urbanization and increasing population growth,” the study further says. According to Kashmir’s agriculture department, saffron land has reduced from 5,700 hectares in the 1990s to 3,715 hectares in 2016 due to land-use conversions.

Saffron farmers, who grow the “king of spices” in fields sprawling across several thousand hectares, mainly in south Kashmir’s Pulwama district, have been complaining for years that lack of rainfall at crucial times has led to a decline in saffron production.

One or two spells of rain in September and October are vital for the crop to flower, farmers say. But in most years since the late 1990s, it either hasn’t rained in those months or has rained too much, damaging the crop, says farmer Mohammad Reshi, adding that farmers still rely on the weather in the cropping season.

“The sprinkle irrigation system, which the government claims has been put in place, should have been functional by now. But it is not working. You can see for yourself what has happened to these pipes and the bore wells. They are not serving any purpose,” Reshi tells IPS while pointing at the defunct sprinkle irrigation system in a saffron field in Pampore, where saffron cultivation is concentrated in Kashmir.

Though, Reshi says, tube wells have been dug and pipes have been laid in saffron fields for years now, “we are yet to see the water in saffron fields.”

According to him, the project was supposed to be completed years ago, but it still lingers. Denying the allegations of saffron farmers, Ghulam Mohammad Dhobi, Joint Director of Kashmir’s agriculture department, who is also the Nodal Officer for NMS, says that the government is trying its best to help the farmers get good yields.

“The farmers have not to wait for long to see the positive results of the irrigation infrastructure, as we are expecting its completion soon after it will function properly,” Dhobi tells IPS.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), which has given saffron cultivation in Kashmir a Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Systems (GIAHS) status, “saffron cultivation has been facing severe challenges of sustainability and livelihood security, with an urgent need to adopt appropriate technologies to address water scarcity, productivity loss, and market volatility.”

Scientific research has established that irrigation plays the most important role in saffron cultivation in Kashmir. Firdous Nahvi, a former agriculture scientist at Sher-e-Kashmir University of Agricultural Sciences and Technology, says that saffron yields have traditionally depended on rainfall in the crucial months from August to October in Kashmir, and saffron yields have fallen in recent years because of the irrigation problem.

According to Nahvi, until 1999-2000, Kashmir received well-distributed precipitation of 1,000 to 1,200 mm per year in the form of rain and snow, but that has now decreased to 600 to 800 mm.

“In any part of the world, farming is unthinkable without water,” Nahvi says and adds: “Creating irrigation facilities was the critical part of the project because we have observed in recent years that it doesn’t rain when the crop needs the moisture.” Nahvi was the expert who advised the NMS implementers about the need for installing the sprinkle irrigation system for saffron cultivation in Kashmir.

Solutions in Farming Methods

Bashir Allie, an agricultural scientist who heads Kashmir’s Saffron Research Station, says that he has also advised the agriculture and irrigation departments of the Kashmir government that creating drip irrigation facilities is crucial for improving saffron yields.

“But we are also working with farmers through our field awareness program to enhance saffron yield,” Allie tells IPS, adding that he and his team are telling the farmers to plant the optimum number of corms in the saffron fields rather than planting them haphazardly.

For example, Allie says, the farmers mostly plant up to 300,000 corms per hectare, “whereas we advise them to go for 500,000 to one million corms per hectare (or 50 corms per square meter).” This, he says, will help the farmers increase their yields, provided they uproot the old corms every four years and plant new corms.

“What we have also observed is that the farmers keep the corms in the fields for up to 20 years and leave them unattended,” he tells IPS, adding that this affects the yield as the older corms keep producing new corms, which increases the competition for nutrients within the population and the entire population underperforms (in producing flowers), thus affecting the yield.

“So, the solution we are offering to the farmers is to plant the optimum number of corms (50 corms per square meter) and replace the corms after every four years,” Allie informs.

To mitigate the impact of drought conditions on saffron crops, Allie says that he and his team have advised the farmers to start growing almond trees in saffron fields at a distance of four to five meters so that they provide shade and help the farmers retain moisture in their saffron fields.

“Once the almond trees produce branches, they will provide shade to saffron fields, as saffron is a shade-loving plant. Also, the moisture in the soil will be retained,” Allie says, adding that the almond trees, besides providing shade, will also produce almonds, thereby helping the farmers increase their income.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Daniel Larison
WASHINGTON DC, Feb 7 2024 – The Biden administration continues to deny any connections between the war in Gaza and the ongoing conflicts involving U.S. forces in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen.

The White House’s position that these are all unrelated conflicts that are just cropping up at the same time can’t be squared with the evidence showing that the war in Gaza has fueled regional instability and violence, including the recent drone attack by an Iraqi militia that killed three American service members and injured more than 40 at a base in Jordan earlier this week.

As much as the administration might want to keep the conflict confined to Gaza, the truth is that it has spread to several other countries. It is a disservice to the American people and to American military personnel to pretend that U.S. support for the war in Gaza hasn’t already had serious negative consequences for regional stability and for American forces in the region when it clearly has.

When he was asked about this “same, larger conflict” at a press conference on Wednesday, National Security Council spokesman John Kirby dismissed any link between Gaza and the U.S. fight with the Houthis or the back-and-forth strikes between local militias and U.S. forces.

“I absolutely don’t agree with your description of the same, larger conflict. There’s a conflict going on between Israel and Hamas…and we’re going to make sure that we continue to get Israel the support that they need to defend themselves against this still viable threat,” Kirby said.

“There were attacks on our troops and facilities in Iraq and Syria well before the seventh of October, certainly in the last administration as well. As for the Houthis, they can claim all they want that this is linked to Gaza, but two-thirds of the ships that they’re hitting have no connection to Israel whatsoever. So it’s just not true, it’s a falsehood.”

Kirby’s answer is misleading and false. The umbrella group in Iraq that claimed responsibility for the attack in Jordan, the Islamic Resistance of Iraq, explicitly stated that its attack was connected to the war in Gaza.

The Houthi leadership has been emphatic that their attacks will continue for as long as the war does. The decision of other actors to jump on a cause’s bandwagon may be cynical or not, but there is no denying that they have jumped on the bandwagon.

Refusing to face the reality of the connections between these conflicts guarantees that the U.S. will pursue ineffective and counterproductive policies by ignoring that the key to defusing regional tensions is to bring the war in Gaza to an end as quickly as possible.

Kirby did not mention that militia attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria had ceased for several months prior to October 7 because of the understanding that the U.S. and Iran had reached in connection with the prisoner exchange deal. It was only after October 7 that those attacks resumed and then increased to record levels.

Local militias have additional reasons of their own for targeting U.S. forces that predate the war, but there is no way to understand the intensity of the attacks in recent months or their cessation during the pause in fighting in Gaza last year without recognizing that they are linked to Israel’s war.

The same goes for the Houthi attacks. The Houthis did not launch a campaign against commercial shipping during their war with the Saudi coalition, so this is not something that they have usually done since seizing power in 2014. The first Houthi attacks after October 7 were aimed at Israel itself. The Houthis shifted tactics to targeting commercial vessels, but it was clear that they were doing so in response to the war.

No doubt the Houthis are acting opportunistically and are launching these attacks partly to bolster their own political fortunes in Yemen, but that doesn’t change the reality that these attacks are happening now because of the war in Gaza. If that’s true, it also seems reasonable to conclude that the attacks against shipping could be ended with a ceasefire there as well.

The Biden administration has strong political incentives to deny links between these different conflicts. If they acknowledge a link, that makes it harder for them to justify their unconditional backing for Israel’s war because of the greater costs involved. It also undermines their argument for military action in Yemen against the Houthis.

The White House needs Americans to think that the costs of continued support for the war are lower than they are, and they also need Americans to buy that the strikes on Yemen aren’t related to their stubborn opposition to a ceasefire in Gaza.

Now that there are American fatalities from an Iraqi militia attack, the administration wants to compartmentalize each conflict so that the American people won’t conclude that U.S. soldiers are being killed because of a foreign war that the president chose to support without conditions.

The administration insists that it wants to prevent a regional war, but that won’t be successful if it fails to recognize the relationships between Israel’s campaign and what is happening elsewhere in the Middle East. Denying the link with Gaza in Yemen has already led to the blunder of escalation against the Houthis.

That has done nothing to make commercial shipping more secure, but it has drawn the U.S. into another unnecessary, open-ended fight. The president is on the verge of making a similar mistake in response to the drone attack in Jordan.

The U.S. can choose to entangle itself ever deeper in Middle Eastern conflicts as it is doing now, or it can recognize the futility and folly of going down the same dead-end road it has traveled before. If Washington wants to avoid involvement in new conflicts, it must reject the path of escalation and it must stop fueling the war in Gaza that is one of the chief drivers of regional instability.

In the longer term, the U.S. needs to reduce its military footprint in the region to make it harder for other actors to hit American forces, and it needs to reassess and significantly cut back on its client relationships.

The public deserves an honest accounting of what our government is doing in the Middle East and why, and right now the White House isn’t providing anything close to that. If the president won’t change course, the very least that he can do is level with the American people about the full costs of continuing down the dangerous path that he has chosen.

Source: Responsible Statecraft

The views expressed by authors on Responsible Statecraft do not necessarily reflect those of the Quincy Institute or its associates.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);  

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram
KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Feb 7 2024 – Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions in international trade and investment agreements – long abused by opportunists with means – are slowly being rejected by cautious governments.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Developing country governments need to be much more wary of ISDS and its implications, and should urgently withdraw from existing commitments. They should expunge ISDS clauses in existing trade and investment agreements and exclude them from new ones.

ISDS ripe for abuse
ISDS allows a foreign investor to sue a ‘host’ government for compensation by claiming new laws, regulations and policies adversely affect expected profits, even if changed in the public interest. It involves binding arbitration without going to court.

ISDS provisions are included in many free trade agreements (FTAs) and bilateral investment treaties (BITs). These were invoked in 84% of cases before the World Bank Group’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), the most used arbitration forum. Investment contracts and national investment laws are also invoked.

ISDS decisions are made by commercial ‘for-profit’ arbitrators prone to conflicts of interest. Foreign investors can thus seek compensation amounting to billions of dollars via a parallel legal system favouring them.

ISDS provisions in such agreements enable foreign investors to sue governments for billions of dollars in compensation by claiming changes in national law or policy will reduce profits for their investments.

Neocolonial ISDS
During the colonial era, imperial authorities often used concession contracts to grant private companies exclusive rights to extract resources, such as minerals and crops, or conduct other economic operations, including building infrastructure and operating utilities.

Investments were protected by (colonial) law, and sometimes by investment contracts after independence. Companies might negotiate contracts with governments to get better terms. A tenth of the claims before the ICSID involved such contracts.

Thus, ISDS perpetuates a colonial pattern of privileging the interests of foreign capital. The World Bank’s Foreign Investment Advisory Service (FIAS) has long promoted including ISDS in domestic investment laws. Thirty of the 65 countries it advised enacted new laws providing for such arbitration.

Investment treaty arbitration started as a post-colonial innovation to protect the assets of former colonial powers from newly independent states. Investment arbitration rules deliberately privilege foreign investment over national law.

ISDS abused, biased and corrupt
ISDS encourages abuse and corruption. As legal fees and arbitration awards tend to be very significant for developing countries, when invoked, ISDS has a chilling effect intimidating host governments, often forcing them to concede or compromise regardless of the merits of the claims.

Nigeria was ordered to pay US$11 billion to a British Virgin Islands company, Process & Industrial Developments (P&ID). P&ID had used ISDS to claim compensation from Nigeria for allegedly breaking gas supply and processing contract.

When P&ID initiated ISDS proceedings in August 2012, it had not even bought a site for the gas supply facility. Yet, it claimed to be ready to fulfil its contractual obligations.

Six years later, in November 2023, the English High Court ruled the contract in dispute was obtained fraudulently via secretive practices allowed by ISDS. The Court also ruled P&ID had bribed Nigerian officials, including its legal team then, to get the contract.

Presiding English High Court Judge Knowles expressed “puzzlement over how the [ISDS] Tribunal failed to notice the serious irregularities” despite various “red flags” of fraud noted by others.

Elsewhere, Pacific Rim Mining Corp, a Canadian company, had proposed a massive gold mine in El Salvador using water-intensive cyanide ore processing. Later, it claimed the government had violated its domestic investment law by not issuing a permit for the mine.

The ICSID ultimately rejected the company’s claim, ordering it to pay two-thirds of the US$12 million El Salvador had spent on legal fees. But the company has refused to pay.

Wake-up call ‘down under’
The Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network (AFTINET) advocacy group has updated its brief supporting its call for the urgent review and removal of ISDS clauses in the country’s existing foreign trade and investment agreements.

AFTINET has specifically urged the Australian Joint Standing Committee on Treaties (JSCOT) to review and amend the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Area (AANZFTA).

The Australian Labor Party government, elected in May 2022, pledged not to include ISDS in new trade agreements, and to review such provisions in current agreements. Its brief focuses on ISDS provisions used by Australian mining billionaire Clive Palmer to sue Canberra.

Registering his Zeph Investments in Singapore, Palmer has used AANZFTA ISDS provisions to get compensation from Australia in two matters. The first is his application for an iron ore mining lease in Western Australia.

The second is against the authorities’ refusal of coal mining permits in Queensland for environmental reasons. Palmer has also made a third claim invoking the Singapore-Australia FTA, bringing his total claims to nearly A$410 billion.

Despite the government’s policy against ISDS, the provision was not reviewed in the amended AANZFTA. AFTINET is urging Canberra to urgently remove its exposure to ISDS cases as Palmer’s actions have made this all the more urgent.

ISDS abuses recognised
The Palmer case has increased concerns about ISDS, especially the abuse of lack of transparency. Arbitration processes are typically closed-door, preventing public, including forensic scrutiny of business transactions and practices.

AFTINET notes “excessive” ISDS claims have been growing, while Judge Knowles noted the “severe abuses” of ISDS in the Nigeria v. P&ID case “driven by greed”.

The huge compensations sought and awarded have encouraged even more “long-shot, speculative ISDS claims”. Such claims are typically based on “loose” book-keeping and dubious projections and other calculations, easily falsified by well-paid accomplices.

While the Australian government pledges no new ISDS commitments, but also wants to get rid of earlier ones, much more vulnerable developing country governments seem quite oblivious of the huge risks they are exposing their countries to!

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?’http’:’https’;if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+’://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js’;fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, ‘script’, ‘twitter-wjs’);