Earlier this month, Lee Jae-myung of the center-left Democratic Party won South Korea’s presidential election. Riding a wave of public discontent with former President Yoon Suk Yeol and his People Power Party after months of political turmoil, Lee’s victory was welcomed by prominent Korean peasant unions as a sign of the people’s desire to overcome internal divisions.
In his inauguration speech and subsequent policy announcements, President Lee emphasized the need for “state responsibility in agriculture,” climate-resilient farming, and stronger food security. He called for new legislation that would redefine how the government supports farmers, consumers, and national food supply systems.
Even during the campaign in April, Lee unveiled an agricultural agenda aimed at transforming South Korea into a “K-agriculture powerhouse.” He pledged to expand smart farming and strengthen social safety nets for farmers.
Media reports had quoted him as saying, “Amid the climate crisis, agriculture stands at the front lines of national security—protecting food sovereignty and ensuring our survival. We will initiate a major shift in agricultural policy to enhance competitiveness, safeguard farmers’ livelihoods, and create new engines of growth for Korea.”
His plan includes compensation for agricultural disasters, the expansion of smart farming technologies, retirement and welfare support for aging farmers, an increased agricultural budget and income safety net, and reform of the Grain Management Act to ensure fair rice prices.
The Korean Peasant League (KPL) and the Korean Women Peasants Association (KWPA) responded with cautious optimism. While they welcomed some elements of the proposals, they expressed concern over the lack of specific implementation plans.
The new administration’s pledge to introduce a Food Sovereignty Act has attracted attention. Speaking to IKP News, the policy chair of the Korean Peasants League noted that many of their long-standing demands now appear in the government’s pledges. In particular, the promise to legislate a Food Sovereignty Act reflects what he called a fundamental shift in how agriculture is understood. However, he added that, since most of these pledges remain abstract, close monitoring of their implementation would be essential.
The unions have long warned that efforts to become an “agriculture powerhouse” can lead to an export-driven model, often at odds with food sovereignty. By definition, food sovereignty is the right of people to healthy, culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods—and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems. It prioritizes the needs and rights of producers and consumers over corporate and market demands, promotes inter-generational equity, and supports localized, democratic control of food systems.
Han Seung-ah, policy chair of the Korean Women Peasants Association, also welcomed the proposed direction. She noted that while it remains unclear how the Food Sovereignty Act will address farmers’ rights to production or consumers’ rights to healthy food, the administration’s broader emphasis on state responsibility provides some hope.
She expressed disappointment, however, that while women farmers were acknowledged, no concrete pledges were made to address gender inequality in rural areas or to expand support institutions specifically for women in agriculture.
Producer organizations, including the National Garlic Producers Association and the National Onion Producers Association, have also reacted to the policy pledges They expressed hope that the Lee administration would take stronger steps toward supply management and establish a stable safety net for farm operations. For years, garlic growers have campaigned against the government’s continued use of low-tariff quotas (TRQs) to import garlic, arguing that this policy depresses local prices despite sufficient domestic supply. With price issues creating tension between producers and consumers, these groups emphasized the need for a shift in agricultural policy—one that ensures stable domestic production over short-term price competitiveness.
At the same time, peasant unions have raised concerns about inconsistencies in the policy package. Programs like RE100 and “solar pensions,” as well as proposals to expand smart farming and alternative income sources, could have unintended consequences if rolled out poorly. For example, corporations promoting solar energy infrastructure on farmland, the aggressive push for smart farming technologies, and increased dependence on non-farm income all risk sidelining sustainable, small-scale agriculture.
For over a decade, Korean peasant unions have opposed smart farming policies, which they see as enabling corporate control of agriculture. They warn that smart farms prioritize high-tech solutions and large-scale capital investment, undermining agroecological practices, traditional seeds, and low-input methods. As corporate actors gain greater influence over agricultural systems, smallholders fear losing autonomy, falling into debt, and becoming trapped in exploitative contract farming systems.
As quoted by IKP News, union leaders warned that regardless of how promising the pledges may sound, unless there is a deeper transformation in the philosophy of agricultural policy-making, there remains a risk of repeating past mistakes—where efficiency and productivity take precedence over sovereignty, sustainability, and justice.
This article includes material from a report by Jang Su-ji for IKP News.