[fierarul]

I agree that the site might have an angle and I don't believe their alternative solution (agroecology) is any good. Still, the article seems to showcase some questionable points about the AGRA initiative.

The whole idea of introducing IP law for seeds to improve yields then show a 17% increase, just like the baseline, seems a monumental mistake.

The fertilizer situation is questionable too. If they put so many conditions then they should also guarantee some outputs. Otherwise there's no risk for them, only the farmers. But I grant you that whole section seems a bit shallow.

You set a pretty high bar to criticise such huge initiatives. They can fail based on the externalities they create, not only as a model that guarantees an output given some assumptions.

[_glsb]

> Still, the article seems to showcase some questionable points about the AGRA initiative.

And that would be a fair criticism. The problem I see with the article like this is that if we are talking about problems that need immediate or at least short-timescale solutions, you often don't have an optimal choice. You might have a choice that's somewhat less shitty. All the hand wringing isn't productive in the best case, and is a deliberate political tactic in the worst.

Hence, I think that the "angle" situation is a serious one. There are a lot of right-wing and left-wing outlets that push an angle that often muscles out any objectivism out of a topic.

> The whole idea of introducing IP law for seeds to improve yields then show a 17% increase, just like the baseline, seems a monumental mistake.

IP laws for seeds are a mistake in general, in my opinion. The optimal solution would be to either soften or repeal IP laws for seeds. Can we attain that short to midterm? Probably not. Does that mean that nothing should be done? No. So we are left to work in a space with solutions of varying shittiness, which still worthwhile to engage.

> You set a pretty high bar to criticise such huge initiatives. They can fail based on the externalities they create, not only as a model that guarantees an output given some assumptions.

I don't think so, but that is more the result of how I understand the word "fail". I think it is fair to say that the initiative has failed to achieve the hoped for results due to reasons A, B, C, etc., one of which is that the initial assumptions have proven to be wrong. That way it is pretty transparent.