ISTANBUL CANAL IS A 45-KILOMETER LONG WATERWAY TO TRAVEL BACK IN TIME & LIBERATE THE STRAITS

Bosphorus may be a strait for the world – a choke point in global waters – but for the people of Istanbul, the beautiful waterway represents the city’s soul. No matter how taxed you are, once you get onto a ferry to get to the other half of city, on the facing continent, you are taken over by the fulfilling experience of nature at its best – and its purest.

Interestingly, the enchanting strait is no less magical when it comes to what it could be leveraged for in international politics. There is a reason why the ancient Byzantium, former Constantinople, and the modern day Istanbul,  remained such a coveted city for global powers throughout most known history.

Today, Bosphorus represents Russia’s gateway to Europe through the crucial warm water ports in the Black Sea, which can be used around the year. The right to passage gives Russia significant influence in the Mediterranean, thanks to its Black Sea fleet. Similarly, vessels coming to Russia – and other Black Sea states – have to navigate through the busy strait at the heart of Istanbul.

As nice as this may seem to Turkey, it has also put it into a difficult position amidst the power struggle between Russia and the US, among others. In case of hostilities, both heavyweights know that the assent of Turkey in the straits could be a game-changer.

It was because of such sensitive nature of the straits – and the threat to Turkey from the expanding fascist Italy then – that the world powers had reached the Montreux Convention in 1936, which governs the rules of the game in the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles straits.

At that time, the treaty had given control of these erstwhile internationally-governed waters to Turkey under certain terms. It limits the number, and kind, of warships that can pass through, and the duration for which they can remain in the Black Sea, while providing a free, toll-free, passageway to civilian ships at the same time, in times of peace.

Now, something is happening in Istanbul which could bring 1936 back.

The canal and the craziness

Istanbul Canal, a flagship project of the Turkish government, is planned to be an artificial, 45 kilometers long waterway, on the European side of Istanbul, which will run roughly parallel to the Bosphorus. The foundation stone for the first of the 6 planned bridges was laid on 26^th June, 2021. Erdogan has called it his ‘crazy but magnificent’ project.  

Istanbul Canal is expected to significantly reduce the congestion in Bosphorus, which is currently one of the busiest waterways in the world with the average waiting time of about 14 hours for normal vessels, but which sometimes can get much longer.

As the Bosphorus is an S-shaped strait with extremely sharp turns and has about 45,000 ships crossing it annually, the congestion in such difficult waters has resulted in some severe accidents in recent decades, with incidents of fire that lasted a month in 1979, a 20,000 tonnes of oil spillage in 1994, and near-misses, such as of the ship River Elbe which almost crashed into a waterfront mansion on the 1^st of April, 2021.

Even so, not everyone is convinced about the worth of the project. The canal is estimated to cost a whopping $15 billion. Moreover, the initial estimate has been criticised for underestimating the potential cost and overestimating the revenues, projected to reach around $8 billion a year.

In addition to being expensive, it has been criticised for its potentially adverse impact on environment. Dissidents argue that it could potentially displace thousands and level hundreds of hectares of forest.

Moreover, it could impact sea life as well. The Black Sea is 50cm higher than the Marmara sea, and the difference in salinity of the two seas, may result in a change in composition of the latter.

Experts point out that the flow of cellular organisms into Marmara will result in a higher demand of oxygen, and thus create a breeding ground for bacteria and other organisms which create a sulphurous gas which smells like rotten eggs – and could spread in Istanbul. There are fears that it could severely affect sea life in the Marmara Sea as well.

The upside, according to the government

Yet, for the government the benefits of the project outweigh the costs. For one, it argues that the Bosphorus would become cleaner with lesser waste water from ships, lesser traffic, and safer for the people of the city. Similarly, the damage to the forest area is planned to be compensated with green archaeological parks lining up the coast of the new canal.

Moreover, the government expects the canal to provide a sizeable stimulus to the economy of Istanbul, a city that houses about a fifth of the the total population and is responsible for about a 3^rd of country’s total value production – or the GDP.

Add to this the fact that the canal will provide a big impetus to construction –  the sector that accounts for 8% of the economy directly, and about 30% when all the linked industries are considered.

The banks of the canal will have earthquake-resistant, residential developments expected to house about 500,000 people. The prospect of the canal has already meteorically increased the value of those lands, which along with other canal-related investments, is seen as a source of foreign currency providing support to the frail Turkish Lira.

Alongside all this, the government claims the project will reimburse itself. Currently Turkey is able to collect no taxes from vessels crossing the Bosphorus, as per the Montreux Convention. With the canal, however, the authorities expect a new source of revenue. With a reduced waiting time for ships with the new waterway, an increased traffic is expected in Turkish waters too. According to – somewhat optimistic – government estimates, 54,900 ships could sail through the canal in 2026, and the figure will rise to 68,000 in 2039.

One canal to rule them all

Yet, something besides the economy or the environment may be the central motivation for the project. Analysts believe that the canal will lend more leverage to Turkey on the Bosphorus.

On the face of it, it seems paradoxical to expect Istanbul canal to increase the importance of the already-existing strait. But Turkey could negotiate the terms of the Montreux Convention as they apply to the new canal, and that can hardly happen without some form of renegotiation about the rules that govern the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles straits.

Thus, what in Erdogan’s own words is his ‘crazy but magnificent’, is indeed expensive. But if it works, and with astute moves on the political chessboard, it may give more weight to Turkey in the region.

Irked by recognition of Turkey’s right to block free passage through Bosphorus and the Dardanelles whenever Turkey suspected a threat, Stalin lamented that, “The result [of Montreux Convention] was that a small state [Turkey] supported by Great Britain held a great state by the throat and gave it no outlet.”

Turkey, being central to NATO, is not dependent on Britain anymore. At the same time, Putin seeks good relations with Turkey, given its ability to control the straits with direct as well as indirect measures – such as marking which ships are dangerous, and establishing the protocol on how they can pass.

Thus, a politically more powerful Turkey, than what Stalin had been complaining about, sits at the centre of Asia and Europe as well as between Russia and US-NATO. The new canal will tighten that hold.

(Earlier version of this article was published in the Daily Sabah and may be accessed here)

Coffee Extinction Is Nature’s Way of Telling Us: “Heal the World, Now!”

We have not known coffee for very long. Most accounts take us only as back as the 15th century, when it was first used by the mystics of Yemen. Yet, coffee somehow got the lion’s share of blame in many conspiracies around the world. Attempts were made with varying level of success by those who valued order over thrill to get it banned in the Ottoman Empire, Persia, Sweden, and Italy.

Now, the sublime beans seem to have had more than their due share of trouble, and are calling it a day.

Scientists have warned that 60% of the species of coffee are at risk of extinction. Out of 124 known types of coffee species, we actually use just two for our beverage: Coffea Arabica and Coffea robusta. But Arabica, the most popular one, is in trouble too.

Most of the species facing the risk of extinction are not used for making coffee. But even those must be conserved, scientists say, for cross-breeding and production of more resilient new varieties, which are sensitive to climatic threats.

While coffee will not disappear anytime soon, the quantum of the problem is significant. Ethiopia, the original source of the enigmatic beans, is still the largest African exporter of coffee. But 60% of the land that is used for coffee production there will become unsuitable by the end of this century.

A very nice-tasting species of coffee, the Coffea stenophylla, was seen in December 2018 for the first time since 1954. This was only a single plant, in an area that itself, scientists reported, was threatened by human encroachment and deforestation.

Rising global demand

According to experts, while global coffee demand is expected to double by 2050, at least half of the land used for coffee production may become unsuitable by then.

Even though a higher demand may support price in the short to medium run, we will actually be pushing the planetary boundaries in the longer run beyond what the Earth can sustain.

In the absence of appropriate support mechanisms, a higher demand will lead to a greater environmental stress, that is worsened by a warmer planet. Challenges to coffee production may increase in scope, as well as intensity, over time. The need to strengthen and augment the coffee ecosystem is urgent.

Anatomy of environmental stress

Human-induced climate change, diseases and pests, and deforestation are some of the reasons why certain species of coffee are already under threat.

Take Costa Rica, for example, where farmers are leaving coffee plantation in favor of orange production due to erratic weather, and more storms and droughts. This has meant an increase in the cost of the production of coffee. On the other hand, farmers find oranges to be more resilient in the face of climatic threats. This must be a difficult decision in a country where people feel a deep connection between Coffea and who they are.

But the damage from climate change does not stop here. As a result of the hotter climate and increasing rainfall levels, fungi such as the coffee leaf rust (Hemileia vastatrix) and pests like the coffee berry borer (Hypothenemus hampei) are appearing in areas that were previously free of them.

Meanwhile, growers in other areas, like Australia, which represents a potential substitute area to the more conventional centers of coffee production, lament less-than-usual rainfall, due to changing weather patterns.

Even if rainfall were optimal, Australian coffee is less environmentally stressed otherwise, and therefore, has 10-15% lesser caffeine. Caffeine production being a defense mechanism, a less stressful environment means less caffeine.

It, therefore, seems like there is also an optimal level of stress at which nature thrives. However, instead of respecting such subtleties and the intricate forces of balance in our world, we revel in the excesses that we cheer as the era of mass consumption.

Danger to livelihoods

As we see these problems from a distance, we may be tempted to conclude that there is still enough time to act and that appropriate measures will probably prevent something as extreme as coffee disappearing from the planet.

Yet, for those whose livelihoods depend on coffee, the question is rather irrelevant. For them, the coffee either stays feasible, or has to be replaced by some other crop as soon as possible. The falling prices of coffee worldwide have made things even more difficult, especially for smaller farmers.

Already 40% of coffee farmers are estimated to be living below the poverty line. Small farmers owning less than 5 hectares (12 acres) of land account for two-thirds of global coffee supply. They are not only poor to begin with but cannot compete with big producers in mechanization, automation, or cost-effectiveness.

Compare the small producers, with the big producers of Brazil, for example, which accounts for a third of global coffee production. Owing to greater sophistication, big Brazilian producers can produce more at a lower cost.

This is bad news for smaller farmers. When the overall production in the world is high – sometimes driven solely by Brazil – the price falls. This, again, effects small farmers disproportionately, who are producing at very low profit margins already. When the prices are too low, it is not unusual for them to have to sell below cost.

At the end of the day, poorer farmers may end up producing lower quality beans, at a higher relative cost, and not being able to incorporate more sustainable agricultural practices, like soil enrichment.

The result is that these farmers are trying to switch to other crops where they can. But switching to other crops is not a costless process, and may not always be a success. The disturbances from climate change and an erratic pricing system, have resulted in psychological health problems in poor farmers ranging from anxiety and depression to suicide.

Healing the world

The indifference of the world to the raging inequalities is heartbreaking. As we grab a $5 cup of coffee, on the go, we should think about the farmer who must have worked for 48 hours to make the same amount of money.

At the very least the world needs a mechanism to ensure a fair price to the coffee farmers, as their already challenged livelihoods are disrupted by the environmental footprint of the richer world. The richest 10% in the world account for more than 50% of global carbon emissions, after all.

So, where are we right now?

The Fair Trade movement is said to be helping farmers with a “fair” price. But even they admit that a price higher than what they are able to offer would be more desirable. Starbucks claims to procure 99% of its coffee “ethically,” where they have data going down to the name of the farmer who they bought the beans from along with the price (which they do not disclose publicly).

Others call for the key role of greater transparency in paying farmers, with some companies even mentioning the price they paid the farmer for the coffee clearly on the package. While these measures are worthy of recognition, they are more like first aid to a broken system that perhaps needs a much more drastic solution.

As for the search for more resilient strains, big investments are needed from governments and coffee companies. Many such trials for “future-friendly” coffees are already underway.

Yet arguably, the coffee’s endangerment is part of a bigger problem. The world leaders need to take responsibility for global environmental problems and devise an enforceable and credible mechanism to punish deviances.

Human-induced global warming is perhaps the central threat endangering coffee’s diversity. Extinction, in this perspective, is nature’s way of telling us, that all is not well. Manic consumption, obsession with profits, the disregard for the environment, and the inequalities plaguing our world actually have a cost. If it continues, nature is telling us, it will not continue.

As I sip my coffee and write from the comfort of my cozy room, climate change seems somewhat distant. The coffee farmer, who provided the beans for my coffee, meanwhile fights a battle for survival – her crop was ravaged by an unexpected storm.

(First published in Politics Today, here)