Today, the logistics centers play an important role in the development of various formats of international interaction at the beginning of the new Millennium. At the present stage, their role is particularly high in the context of integration processes at the regional and global levels. The trends of globalization and regionalization led to the formation of the concept of “global region” and the increasing competition of integration associations for sales markets.
The current fight in the transit transport market in the regions of the world is becoming more complicated, as in modern conditions, competition for transit cargo flows is moving from offering more rational routes and cost-effective services to meeting the geopolitical and geo-economic interests of the main participants.
In this regard, initiatives by individual States or mega-partnerships to build new systems and channels of economic interaction between individual countries and subregions are emerging in regions of the world. It should be understood that the implementation of such projects requires the creation of a new architecture of international transport corridors. Thus, in response to the new challenges of developing economic relations between Europe and Asia, EU leaders began to take steps towards the development of logistics routes on the continent.
The Concept of the pan-European corridor was one of the first to appear as part of the concept of pan-European transport infrastructure and was developed for more than 8 years at the so-called Prague (1991), Cretan (1994) and Helsinki (1997) conferences. Its main goal was to increase the EU’s connectivity with its (back then) potential members – the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). After the Helsinki conference, the content of the pan-European transport and infrastructure network was formulated, which consists of : 1. Trans – European transport network in the EU (TEN-T); 2. 10 pan-European corridors in CEE; 3. 4 pan-European transport zones; 4. TRACECA Eurasian routes.
The implementation of the 10 pan-European corridors program (in 1995 – 2005) was closely linked to integration processes in Europe and the desire to develop pan-European cooperation. Nevertheless, the large number of States in Europe and the borders separating them, and differences in the rules governing international transport, significantly slowed down the cross-border movement of goods.
After the EU enlargement in 2005, a Program was developed to expand the main transport routes (5 logistic roads) to neighboring countries and regions, which were considered as an infrastructure framework for pan-European economic cooperation, which was linked to the future prospects of the EU .
Deepening integration processes within the Union and building up mutual economic and social ties have revealed bottlenecks in European logistics in the form of disparate national projects for its development, lagging in the introduction of intermodal transport technologies, and insufficient coordination of the development of individual modes of transport and improving their environmental friendliness. In order to eliminate these bottlenecks, the EU adopted the Trans – European transport network development program (TEN-T), designed up to 2050.
TEN-T consists of two subsystems: a comprehensive one that provides integrated transport development in the EU countries and a high-speed connection of about a hundred European urban agglomerations, all major seaports, airports and border checkpoints, and a basic one in the form of Trans – European highways, where international traffic is concentrated. There are 9 main logistics hubs: North sea – Baltic; Mediterranean ; Rhine – Danube ; Baltic – Adriatic ; North sea – Mediterranean ; middle East ; Atlantic ; Scandinavia – Mediterranean; Rhine – Alps.
The implementation of the program allows ensuring the smooth functioning of the internal market, economic, social and territorial cohesion of the EU, and improving transport accessibility throughout the Union.
Another EU project to strengthen logistics routes along the EU – Asia line was the TRACECA project created in 1993. Over the past ten years, more than 50 technical assistance and investment projects have been implemented under the TRACECA program, in which 14 States participate, and private investment has exceeded $ 1 billion. In particular, over the past five years, $ 25 million has been invested in the development of the ports of Baku and Turkmenbashi, $ 70 million in Amirabad (Iran), and about $ 100 million in Aktau.
As a result, a significant part of the cargo traffic passing through the Caspian region already goes through TRACECA. However, difficulties in the implementation of the project are also present and the deadline for the corridor to reach full capacity has been pushed back to the 2020s. This project provides for the reconstruction of logistics between Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia.
Geopolitical changes on the world map and the strengthening of the PRC as one of the main actors in international relations not only in the region, but also in the world, attracted the attention of European political and business circles to a new project put forward by the PRC in 2013 – Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)
According to the Chinese side, the BRI concept should not be considered an integration structure, international or regional organization. This is an initiative of mutually beneficial cooperation and joint development of China and neighboring countries.
The main goal of the project is to redirect the flow of exports of goods and capital to those countries with which China has begun to develop cooperation in the last decade, primarily to countries in Africa and Central Asia and Western Europe. The project’s focus on solving China’s long-term Eurasian problems is clearly visible. After solving numerous political, organizational, financial and other issues, the communication basis of the project should be implemented in the current logistics.
According to the initiators of the project, the New Silk Road should include land and sea components. The land-based silk road, as it was a thousand years ago, will start in Xian (Shaanxi province), then pass through China to Lanzhou (Gansu province), Urumqi district, and cross Central Asia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. Then, passing through the Bosphorus Strait, it will go to Moscow (Russia), continue to Rotterdam and end in Venice (Italy), where it will meet the sea component.
The Maritime Silk Road will start in Quanzhou (Fujiian province), pass through the major cities of southern China, Guangzhou (capital of Guangdong), Beihai (Guangxi) and Haikou (Hainan), reach the Strait of Malacca with a stop in Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), cross the Indian ocean with calls in Kal-Kutta (India), Colombo (Sri Lanka) and the Maldives, and reach Nairobi in Kenya. Then it will pass through Djibouti, the Red sea and the Suez canal to Athens (Greece) and then to Venice (Italy), where it will connect with the land route.
Control over two Silk Road routes ensures China’s energy security and helps protect its investments in strategically important regions. In addition, the implementation of the project allows to reduce logistics costs. Thus, it is important for China to ensure the security of East, Central and South – East Asia, on which political and economic stability depends the well-being of a number of border regions of the PRC, as well as the stability of its trade.
The emergence of the Belt and Road Initiative has become the embodiment of a competition of development models that challenges the former role of the EU as a global model of regional integration. “Belt and road” partnerships of ASEAN with major international players (USA, China, Russia, Japan, South Korea), as well as the Trans – Pacific partnership are a set of new initiatives, “significantly different from classical integration schemes, which are formulated in the theory of international relations based on the experience of the EU, and “new regionalism” relying on non-state actors and transnational processes that occur “apart from” state” .
China’s ability to respond with interest to new plans for regional cooperation has become an advantage against the background of the EU’s wary attitude to the BRI, which has led to the involvement of the interests of Central Asian and Eastern European countries in the initiative. Thus, as a consequence of the involvement of the Eastern partnership countries in the Chinese investment zone of influence, the EU and China decided to combine their logistics routes.
Analyzing the Sino – European relations, it can be noted that the current relations between the EU and China are characterized by a comprehensive content of the bilateral agenda. In an effort to strengthen a common foreign policy line in relations with China, in 2015 The EU has developed a document“Elements of a new EU strategy towards China”. A new “Connecting Europe & Asia: The EU Strategy” was adopted in 2018, which specified the European policy towards Asian countries as part of the “connectivity” approach, providing a forum for coordinating EU and Chinese infrastructure investment relating to TEN-T and the BRI.
A key objective of the “Connectivity Platform” is to ensure that investment takes place within a framework of fair and undistorted competition based on regulatory convergence, while promoting cooperation in areas such as technology, engineering, construction and the development of standards.
An important initial area of work for the “Connectivity Platform” is the financing of investment on priority transport corridors. The Sino – EU summit 2016 in Riga (Latvia) provided further confirmation of an increasing focus on BRI – related projects and initiatives. At the closure of the summit, participants declared that they would make concerted efforts to develop synergies between the BRI and relevant EU initiatives such as the Trans – European Transport Network, more generally support the development of transport routes between Europe and Asia, and establish multimodal logistics centres throughout the area of the New Eurasian Land Bridge. They also committed to improving the international supply chain and border crossing rules on key transport corridors and the connection from the Port of Bar (Montenegro) to the railway network in Central and Eastern Europe.
Analysing the logistics along TEN-T, it should be mentioned that the EU has ports on the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea (including the Aegean, Adriatic, Tyrrhenian and Balearic Seas), North Atlantic Ocean, North Sea and Baltic Sea, providing a wide range of access points for shipping from outside the EU.
Also should be taking into the consideration the possible approaches to the EU by land and sea and the TEN-T core network corridors. Thus rail services between China and the EU currently operate mainly on the route through Russia, Belarus (where they transfer from the Russian, broad gauge (1,520mm) to the standard UIC gauge (1,435mm) at Brest) and Poland, using the North Sea – Baltic TEN-T Core Network Corridor (CNC) at least as far west as Warsaw. In the course of this research, various rail routes from the Far East to the EU were assessed to determine the most likely ones for carrying rail freight in the future. To that end, the attractiveness of the time of the shipment was considered. Based on the above assumption, it was found that, with shipping times to the North Sea up to one week longer than to the Mediterranean Sea, rail would be most attractive for transport to Europe north of the Alps, including to EU Member States bordering the North Sea and Baltic Sea.
Containers carried by rail, therefore, would primarily be those previously shipped to North Sea ports, and would travel along the route from Moscow (Russia) through Brest (Belarus) and Warsaw (Poland) to Berlin (Germany). Containers carried by sea would first pass or call at ports in Southeast Europe, such as Athens/Piraeus in Greece, where they could in principle be transferred to rail for travel further north. However, most freight of sufficiently high value to justify the additional costs of rail across the Balkans would already have switched to overland rail travel across Asia. It would therefore be more cost-effective for the remaining containers at Athens/Piraeus to continue by sea to ports in the north Adriatic Sea, such as Venice and Trieste in Italy, Koper in Slovenia and Rijeka in Croatia.
Assuming that sufficient end – to – end capacity is available between China and the EU, the focus of future rail freight flows, including those attributed to the BRI, is likely to be the North Sea – Baltic TEN-T CNC from Brest to Warsaw(Poland).
Some freight trains through or around Warsaw (Poland) currently continue to Berlin and Duisburg in Germany, but, by 2040, services may diverge to a range of destinations: south via Katowice in Poland to Hungary and Austria, Slovakia and the Czech Republic, and onwards to southern Germany, Switzerland and France; southwest via Łódź and Wrocław in Poland to Germany; west, as at present, via Poznań (Poland) to Germany, and onwards to the Netherlands, Belgium, the United Kingdom and Ireland, and via Hamburg to Denmark and Sweden; and northeast along Rail Baltica to Lithuania, Latvia, Estonian and Finland.
The routes to the west and to the northeast form part of the North Sea – Baltic Core Network Corridor of the TEN-T, which extends from Warsaw west to Berlin, Amsterdam and Rotterdam and north to Tallinn and Helsinki. The North Sea – Baltic Core Network Corridor Study includes estimates of rail freight tonnage crossing the border between Belarus and Poland in 2025. While it is difficult to compare estimates of tonnages and TEUs, the estimates in the Corridor Study appear to be small compared with the potential volume of BRI – related traffic by 2040.
Despite wide range of synegration of TEN-T and BRI, the analysis showed, that the geographical and project scope of the BRI are not clearly defined and that they continue to evolve.
The analysis of potential future traffic flows in this study suggests that the first study should focus on the New Eurasian Land Bridge Corridor connecting with the North Sea – Baltic Core Network Corridor of the TEN-T. This would require dialogue with other organisations already engaged in the development of rail transport routes in Eurasia, in particular CAREC. It would also require engagement with organisations such as UNIFE, representing manufacturers of rail equipment, with an interest in the promotion and application of EU standards beyond its borders.
The analysis of BRI – related traffic flows in the EU suggested that the BRI could generate additional rail freight of approximately 3 million TEU (equivalent to 50 – 60 trains per day or 2 – 3 trains per hour each way) between the Far East and the EU by 2040. Subsequently, it was concluded that the most likely TEN-T corridor to be required to accommodate this traffic would be the North Sea – Baltic Core Network Corridor.
It is not expected that the BRI changes patterns of shipping traffic materially other than to reduce slightly the volume of freight entering the EU via the North Sea Ports. Any effect might be offset by a growth in the shipment of BRI – generated freight across the North Sea to the UK. Nevertheless, it should be noted that maritime trade between China and the EU is already well-established, and that it is not possible to forecast possible changes in related trade patterns as a result of the BRI.
Given these results, and taking account of the uncertainties surrounding the definition and evolution of the BRI, recommendations to address particular constraints or bottlenecks on TEN-T beyond those already highlighted by the corridor studies would be premature. In the absence of greater clarity on the scope and priorities of the BRI, there is a risk that the development of specific investment projects designed to accommodate more traffic on the North Sea – Baltic Core Network Corridor, for example, would prove either inadequate or redundant.
It is also worth noting the issue of stabilization of subsidies for infrastructure and logistics projects of the PRC through the EU – Asia line.
At the same time, the TEN-T Corridor Studies should be reviewed and developed periodically as the work of the “Connectivity Platform” progresses and the BRI is defined more clearly. This would require TEN-T policy to become more outward-looking, with an explicit requirement to take account of major policy initiatives sponsored by countries outside the EU. It could also be facilitated by the development of periodic forecasts of BRI – related traffic, following the model of the European Commission’s Reference Scenario, with forecasts developed under the framework of the “Connectivity Platform” and jointly approved by participating countries.
Despite the presence of problem areas in the development of logistics ties between the EU and China, partners (especially the EU) note that the development of the logistics is greatly influenced by the geopolitical considerations of countries, in particular the desire to strengthen their foreign policy influence through modern infrastructure, reduce the geopolitical risks of entering major markets, and diversify options for communication with world markets. In other words, the dynamics of the developing of the EU – China logistics is a reflection of technological progress in transportation, the progress of globalization and regionalization of the world economy, geopolitical and geo-economic interests of participating countries in the development of international communications.
It should be understood that one of the key advantages of continental cooperation in the Eurasian space is the possibility of developing transport potential and related infrastructure. Work in this direction will lead to a number of positive effects, the main of which are the use of the transit potential of countries, localization of industry along the Trans – Eurasian transport corridors, export development and increased connectivity of inland States and regions.
Constructive interaction between the EU and China on the development of logistics routes in Eurasia shows that participation in the Eurasian cooperation can help the participants of the initiative “consolidate the strategic rear”, provide a basis for the rise of countries and influence the restructuring of the world structure, become a useful platform for global governance and international policy building.
Regulatory Noose Tightens Around the Federal Reserve: Powell Reaffirmed a Second Term
The Federal Reserve has been under a sharp gaze since the twilight years of former president Donald J. Trump. Whether it was tinkering with the Dodd-Frank Act or the Volcker Rule specifics, controversies turned up more frequently than ever. If it was not for Powell’s centrist play, the partisan clash was all but inevitable. However, the fed chair managed to persuade either side to survive at the helm of the Federal Reserve. Now, as the critics are relentlessly scouring to inhibit his path to reappointment, scandals are bound to exacerbate. The recent controversy around the suspicious trades by the fed officials during the periods of ‘heightened market stress’ has spurred a debate around the reliability of the officials at the precipice: officials responsible for sketching the national economic policy. Thus, while Mr. Powell has deftly guided the US economy through the chaotic period of covid uncertainty, it appears as if the savior has a tough road ahead towards renomination: a path embellished with censure rather than approbation.
The current term of Mr. Jerome Powell ends in February 2022. While he vies for renomination as per the fed’s tradition (besides his predecessor: Ms. Janet Yellen), a group of vocal critics is determined to block his path. However, Powell’s term, despite being one of the most tumultuous incumbencies, has impressively very little to admonish. Coupled with his timely decisions throughout the covid crisis, he definitely stands an assured chance of renomination, given the President is inclined to overlook the partisan divide in favor of an inured chairman to steer the economy completely across rather than risk a shift in an already incendiary economic environment. That being the case, a barrage of ethics scandals disclosed by the New York Times has raised enough eyebrows to disrupt a smooth sail for Mr. Powell.
Recently, regional fed presidents: Mr. Eric S. Rosengren of Boston and Mr. Robert S. Kaplan of Dallas featured in reports alleging their suspicious engagement in trading securities in 2020. The timeline of the trades ties up with the early days of the pandemic when the fed had purchased more than $4 trillion worth of Treasury and Corporate bonds to bolster the economy through surfeit liquidity and near-zero yields. The disclosures further revealed that even Mr. Powell was involved in a trade on 1st October 2020 – selling between $1 million and $5 million in a broad-based stock fund through his vanguard fund.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, one of the core critics of Mr. Powell, immediately raised arguments around the plausibility of Insider Trading: exacting the President to launch an investigation into these trades. Both regional presidents resigned shortly after the disclosures while Powell assured an inquiry. Mr. Powell, however, was sheltered from broader criticism for apt reasons. Mainly because his transaction involved a market-based stock index fund; practically dispersed throughout the market. In simpler terms, assuming he had insider knowledge of particular stocks, it still would not have helped him profit since his transaction was diversified, that is, not limited to specific securities. Moreover, given that he had already made his speech at the Jackson Hole Symposium in August; and had already expressed his explicit ‘dovish’ intentions during the fed’s regular meeting in September, the policy was very much public weeks before his transaction. Summing up, not only was his portfolio in the most passive territory, but his trade lost him money: a contradiction to the very notion of insider trading.
Nonetheless, Mr. Powell turned the tables to solidify his spot for another term. On Thursday, the Federal Reserve further tightened the rules and guidelines apropos of investing practices of the Fed policymakers. The new framework disallows the fed officials, including the policymakers comprising the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), from owning individual stocks and bonds. Instead, the future investments would have to be restricted to diversified streams like Mutual funds. Moreover, the officials would have to divest certain assets, including individual bonds, corporate portfolios, agency securities, derivative contracts, before being appointed to the office. The officials would be required to provide a 45 days notice before buying or selling permitted securities. Additionally, they would also be required to hold their positions for at least a year: avoiding any activity during periods of economic distress. A tighter stipulation requires the 12 regional fed presidents to publicly disclose their financial transactions within 30 days rather than annually.
The action of the Federal Reserve is one of the most notable responses yet to widespread allegations. On Thursday, Mr. Powell reiterated: “These tough rules raise the bar high in order to assure the public we serve that all of our senior officials maintain a single-minded focus on the public mission of the Federal Reserve.” He further asked the fed general inspector to access the trading of certain senior officials. It is safe to aver that while the staunch fed critics are determined to hamper Powell’s path to renomination, in my opinion, there is not much of an impetus to deny him another term. While I admit that there are competent candidates for the job in the echelons of the Democrats, the job itself is not the same as before the pandemic. And while the allegations and scandals are nothing new for a prospective fed chairman, Powell’s prompt action to tighten the rules even before the launch of a federal investigation could actually prove to be a final nail in the coffin for his critics.
United World of Job Seekers and Job Creators Will Boost Recovery
Why is there so much disconnect between entrepreneurial thinking and bureaucratic thinking? Has the world of education, certification, occupation divided us, have the organizational structures slotted us so wrongly, have the populace fragmented us and now our combined talents and productive mindsets are all going astray. Why is technology confronting us on mindset issues, forcing us to stand up together to face post-pandemic recovery to deliver real productivity results? Can we review factors and try to come together towards rapid progress, fix and advance?
As an overview, across the world, people always struggle hard to acquire special skills and qualifications to pursue their desired goals, some end up as job seekers and some as job creators, but both types equally work hard, build economies, and create prosperity. However, it is extremely important to face this fact; “Job-Seekers” help build an organization while “Job-Creators” develop the real cause to create that organization in the first place. Study what the last 100 earth shattering entrepreneurs across the world did or observe some 100 small and medium businesses right in your own backyards, on exactly what they are doing.
As the post-pandemic recovery world morphs towards entrepreneurialism, this critical difference of mindsets now demands deeper understanding amongst the economic development leadership of nations and their multi-layered complexities of their management teams. After all bureaucracies and economic growth agencies are primarily highly-qualified job seekers themselves, but now facing establishing a “job-creator” economic thinking, therefore facing a new national agenda as if a chess game, where moving pieces randomly is not the game, strategic command on movement of each piece is victory. The brutality of the message is now exposed as wide-open global debate because post pandemic recovery will take no prisoners.
To create an army of job-creators, academia is not the solution; academic mindset on tackling entrepreneurialism is like scratching and sniffing from old case studies on famous job-creators, telling those stories as if their own, throwing in their own analysis to claim some belonging and highlighting the entrepreneurial errors and mistakes as their own special victories. Always, never admitting the facts that it took special temperaments, zeal for venture, out of box thinking and guts to make those crazy moves while everyone else laughed, however, universities always tabling their own new improved strategies as the real correct and right way. Therefore, how many armies of Steve Jobs alike if they ever created, you decide. Business education is unnecessarily far too expensive and too disconnected. Know the fine differences in order to reshape economic progress.
Entrepreneurialism is neither academia born nor academic centric. However, observe how entrepreneurs always attract other mindsets and academia to join to carry out specials tasks, in comparisons where other mindsets will apply extreme reluctance to allow inviting entrepreneurial mindset in fear to exposure of their own business knowledge limits or facing any criticism by someone without any institutionalized certification center staging as a solo free thinker. Imagine how much laughter persisted what opposition created for entrepreneurs on their earth shattering ideas, from razor blade to treadmill or from bulb to mobile phone.
This time around, on the line are the entire global business models of economic productivity, performance and profitability, juxtaposed with climate change and sustainability where ‘worklessness’ of the future and digitization will place the world upside down. Get ready for a war of mindsets. Critical thinking and lifelong learning will save occupationalism. The absence of the long awaited fourth industrial revolution is proof that unless mindsets are aligned we are going backwards.
Today, economies trapped, digitization stalled, small business crushed and middle class destroyed is the new post pandemic world. Unless such mindset differences are understood, the tug of war of creating powerful economies with entrepreneurial flavor will fail. Provided there is open mindedness, alliances with job-creator mindset will assist jobseeker centric bureaucracies currently surrounded by monstrous challenges allow immediate implementation of deployment ready solutions for national mobilization of entrepreneurialism to uplift midsize business economies.
Today, the majority of nations would like to save by shrinking their highly paid public service staff with hopes to transform them into an entrepreneurial mindset to become producers of goods and services and add to the local economic landscapes. However, despites funds available in some nations still no success as such narratives strangled by job seeker bureaucracies already closed the doors.
Just look around, nation-by-nation, why are their problems so similar, solutions so identical? Is this because the differences hidden between leadership styles committed as nation-builders or as nation-sellers? Is it because jobseekers have already peaked on the pyramids of power, now at the top of the heap, their respective levels of incompetence make them unfunctional to grasp the new challenges and missing greatest market opportunities. The fact is with so many new and repeated elections, so many New Cabinet Changes and appointments, unless root cause issues brought into open, the local-global fiscal propositions keep sinking.
Out there, somehow there is a global rise on mobilization of entrepreneurialism, the fact that world is starving at local grassroots prosperity levels, hungry at midsize economy level but gluttonized and partying in vomitoriums at the very untouchable top levels, nevertheless, the new awareness is cross-fertilizing at rapid speed. The whispers, murmurs, the trembling of the messages are still inaudible to the top leaders but a good positive change in the air.
Recommendations: What will it take for the national economic development leadership along with all affiliated trade groups and agencies to open up to critical analysis of policies and development programs evaluated from new perspectives of entrepreneurial mindsets? What would it take such agencies to have some permanent authoritative and proven entrepreneurial representation of continuous dialogue to improve and adjust? What would it take to create high-level selective immersions of jobseekers’ mindsets to come closer to job-creator mindsets to combine talents and achieve extraordinary results in the marketplace? What will it take to have some closed, open, or national level debates to bring talents and ideas together as a national agenda? What will it take to apply the similar approach of Truth and Reconciliation, after all the damage to grassroots prosperity now visible from space. Time has come to bring our minds closer and not disperse them as conflicting enemies.
The day has arrived to face the change. All mindsets are good but appreciating the difference and their respective strengths for special outcomes are critical. Working all like a team of various experts in a mutual goal is a huge victory. If during the last two years, such topics during pandemic recovery were never on your boardroom table, and mindset selection criteria never applied to determine the outcomes, you may be in a job-seekers centric enclave. Possibly, in deep silence already slotted in a wrong organization, should you now hastily leave the building? Should you help them? In any case, no further proof required. The future of pandemic economic recovery now demands a job-creator mindset. Select your mindset of your choice, acquire and add mastery as a prerequisite, and advance to newer heights.
The rest is easy
Sustainable Agriculture in Modern Society
Now everybody is seeing the world is changing fast in this 21st century and many industries and modern buildings are also developing all over the world. But the land areas for farming are becoming narrower and narrower. Moreover, the global population is increasing rapidly and the earth becomes a crowded planet. But the younger people who are interested in agriculture are becoming less and less. There might be some young people who even think that they get foods from grocery stores because the younger generation are used to buy many kinds of ready-made foods such as fruits and vegetables easily from supermarkets. Recently, in the developed countries, the average age of many farmers is over 50 years old and the numbers of young farmers are decreasing. The shortage of young farmers can become a crisis in the future of the developed world.
In modern days, most young adults cannot see the difficult lives of farmers beyond the curtain. The farmers have to pass their whole life through a tough living in farming and sell their products at very low profit to many profiteering companies because they don’t have much choices. It is a sad story for farmers but truly happening in these modern days.
Today I would like to point out that we should not forget the role of agriculture which is very fundamental and essential for building a nation. Farming is an age-old profession that supported the settlement of human beings for thousands of years to survive on this planet. Agriculture is very important for the development of a nation because it provides the trading and employment, supply the foods and textiles and that can lead to the rise in gross domestic product (GDP) of a nation. Agriculture plays a crucial role in economy of a developing nation where majority of population is in rural areas and agriculture is the main source of job in many underdeveloped areas. Many families in developing countries live depending on farming for their livelihood. So, it can be even said that developing agriculture is an important step to reduce poverty and hunger in many developing countries. Agriculture support nutrients rich foods that are essential requirements for our healthy life because nutrients rich foods provide energy for our body, essential nutrients for our vital organs such as brain and heart etc, and enhance our immune system. So, agriculture is necessary for a flourishing and joyful life of human being.
Especially let’s see my home country, as data from Food and agriculture organization (FAO) of the United Nations, “The agriculture supports 37.8 % of gross domestic product of Myanmar, contributed to 25-30% of total export earnings and employs 70 % of the labour force”. Humans cannot survive without agriculture. When there is no more agriculture, it will end with starvation and collapse in economy. It will cause a serious failure in modern civilization.
Nowadays, modern farming is largely evolved into industrial agriculture where many kinds of chemical fertilizers are being used to induce massive production. Industrial agriculture is beneficial to economic development because it can cause the crops growing faster than in the traditional agriculture. The industrial agriculture can provide more enough foods for growing population in modern civilization. However, it is not sustainable because it cannot protect the benefits of the society and our green planet in the long run. Chemicals used in agriculture are destroying the soil where is left with damaged soil fertility and this area can’t be reused in the future. This is a huge affect to sustainability of our green environment.
Modern agriculture has many issues related to water scarcity, soil erosion, climate changes and etc. To be sustainable in agriculture, we must focus on solutions of these issues. The sustainable agriculture will focus on three bottom lines that is environmental, economical and social.
The sustainable agriculture involves many practices such as using the organic fertilizers in farming, growing drought resistant crops, breeding biodiversity in farms, modified irrigation systems and others. Sustainable agriculture is more suitable to practice for the future of the green earth than industrial agriculture. It is very important to promote awareness of sustainable agriculture and issues related to environmentally toxic practices in agricultures among local farmers. And I believe that it can cause many advantages for economic development if farmers can work systematically with sustainable practices in their farming and the local authority can provide farmers with more technological skills and lending some funding to practice sustainable ways in agriculture. With the willingness to participate for environmental heath at the enough profit for incomes of daily living life, I hope famers will become socially responsible persons.
And another one more point, in this digitalization era, we should certainly apply digital technologies in sustainable agriculture. By developing digital farming, it will help farmers to get easier access to source of many information related to agricultural practices. Government in developing countries should support to develop digital farming as rapidly as possible for the poor farmers to get proper profits and to work in environmentally friendly practices. Since poor countries already have enough labour force, they just need many financial aid and technology supports to grow into sustainable agriculture.
I believe that it is a responsibility for our humans that we should not forget something that had supported our existence on this earth. We should work out for development of traditional agriculture into modern agriculture with the best sustainable ways. As being a part of this society, we must help each other, we must protect the sustainability of this green earth, Biodiversity and this is also beneficial for long-term existence of our human beings on this earth. Let me end this talk by suggesting everyone to promote sustainable agriculture in your surrounding local farming.
US Targets Militants in Turkish-Held Area in Syria
Central Command spokesman Army Major John Rigsbee announced on Friday, October 23, the killing of senior al-Qaeda leader Abdul Hamid...
Multilateralism ‘struggling’ to solve world challenges
While multilateralism remains “committed to solving global challenges”, the deputy UN chief said on Sunday, United Nations Day, it is...
Do You Really Need Name-Brand Cartridges?
Cartridges from printer manufacturers like Hewlett-Packard are notoriously expensive. Considering the price of their basic equipment, ink may cost almost...
General Colin Powell: A Decent Man in Indecent Society
Theologian Reinhold Niebuhr’s (1892-1932) famous treatise Moral Man and Immoral Society (1932) needs significant revisitation through a personal case: former...
Support the UN’s leadership position and multilateralism
Despite its inability to fully satisfy people’s expectations on some issues, the United Nations and its agencies, as well as...
Taliban Takeover and Resurgence of Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan
As a Security and International Relations student and someone who lived in Afghanistan, I believe that the withdrawal of the...
Israel-Bhutan peace agreement and its affect on China’s influence
First: The relationship between (political normalization agreements between Israel and the Emirates and the State of Bhutan or the Kingdom...
Defense4 days ago
Will India be sanctioned over the S-400 Air Defense System?
Intelligence3 days ago
Sino-Russian regional activities after Afghanistan
Economy3 days ago
Sustainable Agriculture in Modern Society
East Asia3 days ago
Importance of peace in Afghanistan is vital for China
International Law2 days ago
The End of the West in Self-annihilation (Intentionality, Directionality and Outcome)
Africa3 days ago
Muscle Alone Will Not Be Enough to Release Nigeria from a Perpetual Stage of Instability
Reports3 days ago
Renewable Energy Jobs Reach 12 Million Globally
South Asia3 days ago
Bangladesh violence exposes veneer of Indo-Bangladesh bonhomie