World Agriculture
Developments, trade, data, and topics in world agriculture
-
India to push food security and agricultural imports plan at WTO Geneva summit~~India to push for food security, farm imports plan at WTO Geneva summit New Delhi to insist on first finalizing a work plan for special safeguard mechanism on farm imports and a solution for food security when WTO gets back to work in February Asit Ranjan Mishra At Nairobi, while India insisted that Doha Development Agenda (DDA) must continue after the Nairobi conference and no new issues must be introduced into the WTO agenda until the DDA has been completed, developed countries led by the US and the European Union were strongly opposed to the continuation of the DDA. Photo: AFP At Nairobi, while India insisted that Doha Development Agenda (DDA) must continue after the Nairobi conference and no new issues must be introduced into the WTO agenda until the DDA has been completed, developed countries led by the US and the European Union were strongly opposed to the continuation of the DDA. Photo: AFP New Delhi: India will insist on first finalizing the work programme for a special safeguard mechanism (SSM) and a permanent solution for food security when the World Trade Organization (WTO) gets back to work early next month in Geneva before any attempt is made to discuss new issues to be included at the multilateral trade talks. India's strategy was finalized last week at a two-day brainstorming meeting of its trade delegation from Geneva and officials in the commerce ministry in New Delhi. “Our approach will be straightforward. All the issues that have been agreed to at the Nairobi ministerial need to get priority," a commerce ministry official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. While India came away disappointed from the Nairobi meeting as the Doha Development Agenda (DDA) was buried without conclusion after 15 years of negotiations, it had a face-saver in terms of assurance that the negotiations for these two aspects of agriculture will be fast-tracked. At Nairobi, while India insisted that DDA must continue after the Nairobi conference and no new issues must be introduced into the WTO agenda until the DDA has been completed, developed countries led by the US and the European Union were strongly opposed to the continuation of the DDA. The Nairobi ministerial declaration acknowledges that members “have different views” on how to address the future of the Doha Round negotiations but noted the “strong commitment of all members to advance negotiations on the remaining Doha issues ”. The Nairobi meeting decided that special sessions of the committee on agriculture will be held in an accelerated time frame for finding a permanent solution to the issue of public stockholding for food security purposes and to pursue negotiations on SSM for developing countries. The WTO General Council has been mandated to regularly review the progress of these negotiations. However, the declaration did not specify any time frame for concluding these negotiations. Earlier, India had derived an interim agreement that protects its right to public stockholding for food security purposes indefinitely, but the country has been insisting on a permanent solution as the present arrangement does not allow it to expand its food security programme to new areas. An agreement on SSM will allow developing countries to raise tariffs temporarily to protect their farmers from high import surges in agricultural commodities from developed countries. Biswajit Dhar, professor of economics at the Jawaharlal Nehru University, said although this is the right approach to follow, there should be consistency in what we signal to the rest of the world. “Our agriculture tariff liberalization policy should be uniform, both at the bilateral and multilateral levels. Otherwise, we will be sending conflicting signals. We also have to get our G-33 position on special products and SSM back on track for the success of our strategy in Geneva," he added. The officials from the permanent mission to WTO made presentations on the current thinking on agriculture and what are the likely scenarios that could evolve post-Nairobi. The official quoted earlier said that the need for a greater coordination between the Geneva mission and the commerce ministry was emphasized. “We should not wait for the last minute to handle a situation. Our position should be evolving and there should be clear understanding of how we should move ahead. Now, there will be more regular interactions. When any important issue comes, there should be quicker communication through video conferencing. The Geneva mission also pointed out that, technically, they were very sound and headquarters (commerce ministry) should have taken advantage of it," he added. Asit Ranjan Mishra
-
World Food and Agriculture Organization: Livestock diversity is crucial for food security~ ~ Inside Views: FAO Head Says Livestock Diversity Is Crucial For Future Food Security On A Harsher Planet 27/01/2016 by Intellectual Property Watch- By José Graziano da Silva, Director-General, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 30 December 2011, Rome - FAO Director-General Jose Graziano da Silva, FAO headquarters. Photographer: Our livestock is increasingly being raised indoors and fed on concentrate feed that is often imported. Intensive production of chickens, pigs and dairy cows is based on a few breeds worldwide. These developments are risky, as we and future generations are losing the potential to adapt livestock production systems to increasingly harsh conditions such as those associated with higher temperatures and shortages of nutritious feeds. Although humankind has domesticated nearly 40 mammalian and avian species and developed 9 000 breeds over the last 10 000 years, most of these breeds exist only in small populations and in certain areas of the world. Some possess very special adaptations. The Yakutian cattle - an amazing breed from the Russian Federation - for example, can endure temperatures as low as -60 oC. They exist in very low numbers today because the traditional livestock production systems that used them have declined and the breed has difficulty competing with high-producing cattle used in many modern farming operations - even though the latter require much better feed and care than the Yakutian. Currently 17 percent of the breeds are at risk of extinction. In addition, nearly 60 percent are of unknown risk status because of a lack of data on the size and structure of their populations. In the face of climate change and other challenges to food security, it is critical we maintain the resilient characteristics of breeds like the Yakutian and so many others that are well adapted to rough terrains, harsh environments and limited feed and water. A new global assessment [link to report, pdf] by FAO revealed that many governments have taken steps to improve the management of their animal genetic resources. While in 2005 fewer than 10 countries reported that they had established livestock gene banks, now 64 countries report that they have done so. A further 41 countries indicate that they are planning to establish such facilities. This is a major step forward, but establishing gene banks is not enough. Countries need to better understand the characteristics of their animal genetic resources, strengthen policies, institutions and management programmes and improve education and training - particularly to enable the establishment of breeding programmes that strengthen locally adapted breeds. This will decrease the dependence of Southern countries on genetic material from Northern countries, improve household food security and be more environmentally sustainable. Diverse genetic resources enable farmers and pastoralists - large and small-scale, in developed and in developing countries - to supply a range of products and services, from food and fibre to fertilizer. And many breeds have valuable characteristics that help maintain landscapes and wildlife habitats. Livestock keepers are the guardians of genetic resources and help steward them on behalf of us all. They must therefore be central to efforts to promote the sustainable use and development of these resources. Countries have agreed to a Global Plan of Action for Animal Genetic Resources and thus ensure that future generations can utilize the wealth of livestock diversity and make use of the harsher environments of the world that cannot be utilized for crop production. FAO is committed to assisting governments and civil society to implement this important plan. Genetic diversity is crucial to the food security of our planet. We need concerted action now to maintain these critical resources for the food security of future generations. Only if we can ensure our food systems are sustainable and able to adapt to new challenges will we rise to the Zero Hunger Challenge of creating a world free from hunger.
-
The Impact of China's Economic Slowdown on U.S. Trade and Agriculture~~China's Impacts of Slowing Growth on Trade and Agriculture in the U.S. Posted by Neil Mikulski, USDA Foreign Agricultural Service, Office of Global Analysis, on January 4, 2016 at 10:00 AM People's Republic of China General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) officials taking samples of U.S. soybeans at the Port of Dalian People's Republic of China General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine (AQSIQ) officials take samples of U.S. soybeans at the Port of Dalian as part of a joint study comparing U.S. and Chinese inspection practices. Photo taken by USDA/FAS employee Mark Rasmussen. International trade is a major factor in the American agricultural economy. A key player is China. In fact China's impact on slowing growth on trade and agriculture is a session topic during the 2016 United States Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Outlook Forum. Over the last two decades, China's economic prosperity and increased consumer demand for food has significantly contributed to the record growth in United States agricultural exports. From fiscal year (FY) 2000 to FY 2015, the value of U.S. agricultural and related exports to China rose from $1.7 to $25.9 billion dollars. Currently, nearly 17 percent of all U.S. agricultural exports are destined for the Chinese market. These export figures highlight the critical importance of the U.S.-China trade relationship for U.S. agriculture and underscores the United States interest in China's ability to maintain a strong and stable economy. Several U.S. agricultural sectors have capitalized on the market opportunities created from China's economic growth. Traditionally U.S. exports to the country were dominated by land-intensive bulk commodities that were processed for domestic consumption or re-exported. Recent increases in Chinese consumer purchasing power and improved standards of living have generated new demand for luxury items and ready-to-eat foods. Looking forward, many of the macroeconomic conditions traditionally signaling long-term growth and trade expansion readily exist in China. An increasingly urban population, a burgeoning middle class, and higher disposable incomes have increased Chinese consumers' ability to diversify diets and purchase high-value, protein-rich foods. Additionally, growth in China's food consumption is forecast to outpace its domestic agricultural production by more than two percent per year between 2015 and 2020, resulting in an increased demand for food imports (IHS Global Insight). U.S. trade with China has been rewarding; however, China's economic slowdown, subsequent reforms, and recent decline in U.S. exports to China have raised legitimate concerns among agricultural stakeholders about the potential impact to U.S. exports in the near and distant future. China's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth is projected to drop to 6.1 percent in 2016, their lowest level since 1990. Moreover, China is pursuing a variety of economic and regulatory policies that promote agricultural self-sufficiency and protect domestic industries. Finally, whether directly or indirectly triggered by the recent economic slowdowns in China, a majority of U.S. agricultural exporters have experienced severe decreases in sales to the region over the last year. Total FY 2015 U.S. farm exports to China are down approximately $4 billion or 13 percent from the previous fiscal year and are projected to drop even more in FY 2016. Collectively, these events have created uncertainty within the global agricultural marketplace and have caused broad speculation on the future of U.S. trade with China. USDA's 2016 Agricultural Outlook session on “China: Impacts of Slowing Growth On Trade And Agriculture” comprises a panel of distinguished experts who will further explore the implications of China's slowing economy and provide keen insight on the prospects of trade between the United States and China. You can find out more about the USDA 2016 Agriculture Outlook Forum at www.usda.gov/oce/forum/index.htm. -See more at: http://blogs.usda.gov/2016/01/04/chinas-impacts-of-slowing-growth-on-trade-and-agriculture-in-the-u-s/#sthash.D3qLPkwX.dpuf
-
America's 'Granary Shifting Due to Climate Change~ ~ U.S. Bread Basket Shifts Thanks to Climate Change Farming across the Midwest will be challenged by a shifting climate and may struggle to keep up crop production By Niina Heikkinen, ClimateWire on December 23, 2015 In September 2014, a group of leading plant and agricultural researchers sat down at Washington University in St. Louis to discuss a looming question -- how will agriculture in the Midwest be affected by climate change? This wasn't just an academic exercise. Midwestern farmers grow the majority of the country's corn and soybeans, and scientists had predicted that yields could take a substantial hit from changing weather patterns, with potential impacts on food prices and farmers' earnings. Even though lots of researchers have studied how climate change could affect agriculture in the country's "bread basket," discussions have been siloed. Agronomists talk to other agronomists, soil scientists to other soil scientists, and agricultural economists talk to agricultural economists. The researchers suggested a different approach -- one that would integrate data across disciplines to build a much more comprehensive picture of how a changing climate could alter farming in the region. Over the following weeks, they developed their idea further. The interdisciplinary group of researchers proposed the creation of a network of field research sites that would collect data on current and future crops, different cropping systems and farm-level management practices. It would emphasize collecting field data to better inform climate modeling in the region, and participating facilities would conduct experiments to test different adaptation and mitigation strategies. Their proposal, titled "Pharaoh's Dream Revisited: An Integrated U.S. Midwest Field Research Network for Climate Adaptation," was recently published in BioScience. "We really wanted to step back and ask the big question of what could we do that would advance the response [to climate change], and we really felt that this was the thing that needs to be done," said David Gustafson, director of the International Life Sciences Institute Research Foundation's Center for Integrated Modeling of Sustainable Agriculture and Nutrition Security and lead author of the article. So far, Midwestern farmers have managed to escape major losses from climate change-related events, but that high productivity may change in just a few decades, researchers say. Today, average yields for corn and soybeans in the Midwest are about 173 bushels per acre. By 2050, researchers predict, yields could fall by as much as a quarter. Yield losses in the Midwest aren't just bad for American consumers. The region provides the largest share of globally traded corn and soybeans. How do you plant 'big data' among farmers? Farmers are already responding to more variable weather by installing drainage systems to keep their fields from becoming waterlogged during heavy rains and expanding irrigation to ward off the effects of drought. Some farmers are reducing tillage to increase soil carbon content and reduce erosion. Others are buying larger equipment so they can complete planting faster when the conditions are favorable. But all these measures may not be enough to prepare Midwestern farmers for the dramatic environmental changes ahead. By between 2035 to 2065, temperatures in Illinois will be more like those in the mid-South, with rainfall patterns ranging between today's East Texas and the Carolinas. While higher temperatures may make certain regions more hospitable for growing, other problems like low soil quality or not enough rainfall could make shifting production there more unlikely. The effect on food prices is much less certain; studies suggest global food prices could stay relatively unchanged or increase by more than 60 percent. These projections could become more accurate with broader access to relevant data on things like soil health, plant growth and farm management, the researchers said. According to Gustafson, one of the first steps to encourage more data sharing will be to get partners like the Department of Agriculture's Midwest Climate Hub, land grant universities and extension programs to collaborate more closely. The network would even include farmers and private-sector data, though that would raise more issues around proprietary information. "Right now, we have islands of data collected by individuals; there really aren't uniform standards for collection and curation of data," said Gustafson. "We believe there ought to be research accessible across the entire Midwest ." Richard Robertson, a research fellow with the International Food Policy Research Institute and co-author of the paper, agreed. As a crop modeler, Robertson said he could use more specific information about real-world farming practices to make his simulations more accurate. "When should I get the fake seed into the fake soil under the fake sunshine?" he asked. The answer isn't always that obvious from the data. A mathematically ideal time to plant from a modeler's perspective might not work for a farmer who is trying to keep his corn from being eaten by pests. But without communication, there is no way for people working with models to accurately reflect that kind of information in their predictions, he said. "I think the vision outlined is brilliant and spot-on," said J. Gordon Arbuckle, a sociologist at Iowa State University who has done extensive research on Midwestern farmers' views on climate change and who was not involved in the study. "Bringing the many relevant disciplines and stakeholders together would be a challenging but ultimately most effective way to improve the resilience of Midwest agriculture ." A long-discussed problem becomes crucial The idea that scientists should do more to work together is not new, and calls for more open data have been getting louder since the early 2000s, said Gerald Nelson, a professor emeritus at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, and co-author of the paper. "In the last 10 years, the push for open data has been inexorable," he said. "That's the direction everyone is headed. What you do have to do is make it easy for people to make data available ." He said that more communication would help researchers identify what kind of data would be useful to colleagues in other disciplines. Robertson said that in his own personal experience, he has seen limited progress in how much researchers from different disciplines work together. "I remember sitting in a room 13 years ago talking about the same thing. This goes back a long ways. Over these 13 years, we haven't been able to get people in the same room at all. As a grad student, I could tell people were talking right past each other," he said. Data-sharing networks similar to what the researchers are proposing already exist in other scientific fields. Climate scientists make weather and temperature data widely available to their colleagues. In genomics, open data initiatives like the Human Genome Project helped to quickly advance research in the field. There are also smaller-scale examples of cooperation within climate change and agriculture research, such as the Sustainable Corn and Useful to Usable projects, which are funded by the Department of Agriculture, said Arbuckle. "[These projects] have shown that integrated, transdisciplinary approaches that bring physical and social scientists together with farmers and agricultural advisors can have powerful results. Scaling such approaches up, as the authors envision, could help us meet adaptation and mitigation objectives more effectively and on a much larger scale," he wrote in an email. Who pays for the experiments? How do you get soil scientists, agricultural economists, hydrologists and climate scientists to work together across disciplines at the scale this paper proposes? "Lock them in a room and shove pizza under the door," Robertson said, laughing. While he's joking about that part, Robertson said that getting everyone to sit down in the same room, and to keep doing that over an extended period time, is important for building communication across different research fields. "For people to work together, there has to be something to work on, and there has to be support, I .e., money to make this happen. It would need somebody somewhere with a big pile of money to say, 'Hey, let's do something for the taxpayers,'" he said. That support would most likely come from public sources like the Department of Agriculture and from private business like Monsanto Co. and Kellogg Co. As for how to make this integrated system work on a practical level, it's still much too early to say, but the researchers hope that the development of such a system would encourage similar collaborations across the United States and internationally. "[The project] has to be big enough that it matters; we don't know exactly how it's going to happen. We need to be testing things out in a wide variety of different experiments," Robertson said. Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
-
American farmers use political power to unscrew California's water valves~~Farmers Try Political Force toTwist Open California's Taps Few in agriculture have shaped the debate over water more than the several hundred owners of an arid finger of farmland west of Fresno. By MICHAEL WINES and JENNIFER MEDINADEC. 30, 2015 FIVE POINTS, Calif. - The message that Maria L. Gutierrez gave legislators on Capitol Hill was anguished and blunt: California's historic drought had not merely left farmland idle. It had destroyed Latino farm workers' jobs, shuttered Latino businesses and thrown Latino families on the street. Yet Congress had turned a deaf ear to their pleas for more water to revive farming and farm labor. So Latinos - the nation's fastest-growing ethnic group, she noted pointedly - were sending a warning that politicians could not ignore. “We created an organization that's called El Agua Es Asunto de Todos - Water Is Everybody's Business - so the Latino voice can be heard," Ms. Gutierrez, who described herself as an El Agua volunteer, said in October 2013 at the meeting with lawmakers. “Don't devastate our economy. Don't take our jobs away ." The group has since blanketed California with demands for more water on Spanish-language television, on the Internet, even on yard signs. But for whom it speaks is another matter: El Agua is bankrolled by more than $1.1 million from the Westlands Water District, the nation's largest agricultural irrigation contractor, a state entity created at the behest of - and largely controlled by - some of California's wealthiest and most politically influential farmers. For almost five decades, Westlands has brought its farmers a torrent of water from the reservoirs and aqueducts of the federal Central Valley Project, the vast public work that irrigates half of California agriculture. Drought has reduced that torrent to drops, and El Agua is one part of Westlands' wide-ranging effort to open the spigots again. Maria Salazar, right, shopped at a yard sale held by Selena Rodriguez, left, at an apartment complex in Huron, Calif., near farmland that is part of the Westlands Water District. Credit Damon Winter/The New York Times Photo The main intersection of Five Points, a farming town in the district. Credit Damon Winter/The New York Times California has more than 81,000 farms, and farmers claim four-fifths of all the water its citizens consume. But no one in agriculture has shaped the debate over water more - or swung their elbows wider - than the few hundred owners of an arid, Rhode Island-size finger of farmland west of Fresno. A water utility on paper, Westlands in practice is a formidable political force, a $100 million-a-year agency with five lobbying firms under contract in Washington and Sacramento, a staff peppered with former federal and congressional powers, a separate political action committee representing farmers and a government-and-public-relations budget that topped $950,000 last year. It is a financier and leading force for a band of 29 water districts that spent at least another $270,000 on lobbying last year. Its nine directors and their relatives gave at least $430,000 to federal candidates and the Republican Party in the last two election cycles, and the farmers' political action committee gave more than $315,000 more. Aggressive, creative and litigious - minutes of a board meeting this year cited 11 continuing or anticipated lawsuits - the district has made enemies of environmentalists, rival politicians and other farmers whose water it has tried to appropriate. But it has also repeatedly made deals and won legislative favors to keep water flowing to itself and to farms across the San Joaquin Valley, California's agricultural heartland. California's snowpack testing on Wednesday was more encouraging than last year, but officials were far from certain that the drought was ending. And the prolonged drought has laid bare the patchwork way water is parceled out. Farmers here have become a target not just of city dwellers forced by conservation decrees to shorten showers and let their lawns go brown, but also of other farmers. In the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta in Northern California this year, growers grudgingly cut production to free up water for Central Valley farms, driven less by charity than by fear that the state would demand even more water if they did not. But while California's farmers could conserve more - fewer than half use low-flow irrigation methods - the reality is more complex. Agriculture makes up just 2.2 percent of California's economy, but this area remains the nation's green grocer, and farming is still the economic lifeblood of the state's arid center. Both locally and nationally, farmers pack a political punch well above their weight. “The federal government's involvement in water is more influenced by what goes on with Westlands than any other single entity," said Daniel P. Beard, who was the commissioner of the Interior Department's Bureau of Reclamation - the agency overseeing Western water - under President Bill Clinton. “They're not wrapped around the axle on politics or ideology; they're pragmatists. What they want is water, a continuation of the flow of money from agricultural programs, and more water ." And for good reason. Since 2005, on average, Westlands farms have annually sopped up one and a half times as much water as all of Los Angeles, most of it - some years, almost all of it - from federal deliveries. The water, largely siphoned from the Sacramento River Basin in Northern California, fuels a prodigious harvest, reported to be more than $1.5 billion last year: almonds for export; tomatoes for paste and sauce; wine grapes; cotton; produce sold under labels like Heinz and Dole. But as drought's grip tightened, the Sacramento River Basin's reservoirs ebbed and the district's federal Central Valley Project water allotment dwindled to zero for the last two years. Farmers have turned to aquifers, pumping so much groundwater that in some places, desiccated fields have collapsed like fallen soufflés. In turn, Westlands has redoubled efforts to increase its share of federal water. It wants new and bigger reservoirs to bolster Central Valley Project reserves. It is backing a much-disputed plan by Gov. Jerry Brown to bore two 35-mile tunnels that would shunt Sacramento River water directly to San Joaquin Valley farms. But most of all, perhaps, it is seeking to persuade Congress to loosen the federal rules that now set aside Sacramento basin water for salmon fisheries and endangered species like the delta smelt. It is a cause that El Agua, the lobby group propped up by the district, has endorsed with enthusiasm. Thwarted this year, the water district will be battling over the same issue when Congress returns next year. Photo Fishing in the San Luis Reservoir in the Central Valley, which stores water from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Credit Damon Winter/The New York Times Westlands officials say the allocations have cut deeply into their allotments of Central Valley Project water. And shortages, they say, are an existential threat to both their farms and the nation. The Central Valley hosts 1 percent of American farmland, but more than 15 percent of all irrigated fields - and it grows a quarter of the nation's food. “We've been feeding people with this food for generations," said Shawn Coburn, 47, whose 1,200-acre farm here in Five Points is scarred with fields that lie fallow for lack of water. “You want to pay more for food? Or you want all your food from China? Fine. Don't come complaining to me ." Critics call that a smokescreen. The farmers' real goal, they say, is to find the cheapest water possible - and Central Valley Project water, taxpayer-subsidized, is far cheaper than water bought on the open market, much less the water sold to homes and industries. “They have an amazing amount of money to spend, and yet they plead hardship," said Patricia Schifferle, a Truckee, Calif., environmental consultant who is perhaps Westlands' most dogged critic. “We're all paying for this largess that goes to the select few ." westlands' size and its broad influence make it a prime target for detractors like Ms. Schifferle. The district calls the attacks unfair, and says that its clout is overrated. “It's easy to pick on Westlands, because Westlands is big," the district's deputy general manager, Johnny Amaral, said in an interview. But Westlands' principal water source - the Central Valley Project - has been cut off for two straight years, he noted, despite its best efforts. “I don't know anybody who wouldn't work for their share in the same situation," he said. The Battle for Water Twenty dams big and 500 miles of canals long, the Central Valley Project offered area farmers a boundless supply of Northern California water for decades. But as a second canal system, the State Water Project, began tapping the same northern rivers in the 1970s, problems emerged. Commercial salmon fisheries collapsed. East of San Francisco, where the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers unite in an estuary, striped bass, sturgeon, shad and smelt began precipitous declines. Congress's solution - a 1992 law reserving at least a minimum amount of water for wildlife - touched off a long-running political backlash by San Joaquin Valley farmers. For 23 years, Westlands has led the mostly losing battle to get that water back: in courts, in Washington and along California roads, where placards condemning a “Congress-created Dust Bowl” blame the government, not drought, for water shortages. The district comes to the fight well prepared. Mr. Amaral was until this fall the top aide to Representative Devin Nunes of nearby Fresno, a Republican. Mr. Amaral's predecessor, Jason Peltier, oversaw Western water issues in the Interior Department under President George W. Bush. Westlands' pre-eminent lobbyist, David Bernhardt, was the Bush Interior Department's solicitor before joining a Denver law firm that Westlands retained after President Obama was elected in 2008. Others have also helped Westlands court federal decision makers. Vin Weber and Denny Rehberg, former Republican representatives from Minnesota and Montana, have been paid more than $550,000 since 2013 to lobby Congress. Photo A large canal that leads to one of several pumping stations on McDonald Island in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Credit Damon Winter/The New York Times Photo The California Aqueduct, near the San Luis Reservoir, carries water from the Sacramento River Basin. Credit Damon Winter/The New York Times At least $530,000 more was spent from 2009 to 2013 for lobbying on endangered-species issues by Julie A. MacDonald, formerly Mr. Peltier's assistant at the Interior Department. Ms. MacDonald resigned that post in 2007; an internal inquiry later concluded that she had improperly disclosed information about Endangered Species Act deliberations to critics of the law. Ms. MacDonald, who has denied wrongdoing, was not charged with any legal violation. The farmers' political action committee and the Westlands board have given generously to the campaigns of friendly federal legislators, contributing at least $120,000 to Central Valley House members in the 2014 election. But one of the district's most notable contributions was made decades ago, not long after Congress's allotment of water for wildlife set off a backlash from farmers. In 1994, Westlands' thoroughly Republican leaders spurned their party's best hope for the Senate, and instead held a fund-raiser for the first-term Democratic incumbent, Dianne Feinstein. Ms. Feinstein has a strong environmental record. Yet she has also labored repeatedly to secure water for California agriculture, and especially for Westlands farmers. For the last two years, Ms. Feinstein has led the effort to push federal drought legislation through the Senate. And perhaps never has the tug-of-war between those competing priorities been so visible. As federal water supplies to California farmlands dried up in 2014, the Republican-dominated House of Representatives - where Kevin McCarthy, from a San Joaquin Valley district adjacent to Westlands farmland, is the majority leader - swiftly passed a bill to undo environmental restrictions on greater transfers of Northern California water to farmers. Ms. Feinstein told the bill's California backers that suspending environmental protections was both a political and a scientific mistake. Her own legislative effort, crafted in secrecy that year, nevertheless sought to ship more northern water to Southern California farmers and cities while still hewing to the letter - although, critics argue, not always the spirit - of the environmental safeguards. The most influential farm voice in that process was Westlands, represented by its lobbyist, Mr. Bernhardt, and by its general manager and top executive, Thomas W. Birmingham. The confidential draft Ms. Feinstein's staff produced that fall offered something for everyone: calls for new and bigger dams, money for water conservation projects and tweaks to existing rules that would send more northern water to southern farms. That autumn, as Ms. Feinstein's staff raced to strike a compromise with House negotiators, portions of the secret draft were leaked. Northern California politicians and environmentalists erupted in outrage over the bill's attempts to wring more water out of northern rivers, and in November 2014, Ms. Feinstein scotched the effort. She tried again this year, with a drought bill that restored some environmental protections for endangered species to assuage fellow Democrats and Northern Californians. But that collapsed in an acrimonious confrontation this month with Republicans in the House, who wanted those safeguards relaxed. Almond trees in the district. Once in the ground, tree crops need regular watering. Credit Damon Winter/The New York Times Ms. Feinstein has promised to try again in 2016. But with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress, no drought legislation is likely to pass without help from Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican of Alaska. Ms. Murkowski, who leads both the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the Appropriations subcommittee on the environment, visited Fresno in April to see the drought's impact. She also paused to raise $100,000 in political donations at a lunch with farmers from Westlands and surrounding areas. George Miller, a former Democratic representative from Northern California, sponsored the 1992 law that mandated a minimum amount of water for the region's fish. He was Westlands' fiercest adversary in Congress before retiring last year. “You've got to give them an 'A' for effort," he said in an interview. “These boys are committed. They play at the highest level, and they never sleep - ever ." But Westlands farmers are unapologetic. Mr. Coburn, the Five Points farmer, not only says that effort is necessary, but he also plays his part in it as an unofficial ambassador to journalists and policy makers. “Big Ag polls poorly, family farms poll well," he said. “Nobody wants to hate on Shawn the farmer ." Two of Mr. Coburn's main crops - almonds and pistachios - also occupy a third of Westlands' fields, up from a fifth in 2010. The reason is not that Americans would starve without them - many if not most are exported - but that they are extremely profitable compared with other crops. Since California's drought began in 2012, the district's farmers have added more than 18,000 acres of nut groves that require constant watering, displacing crops like onions and tomatoes that can be fallowed when water is short. Graphic A Shift Toward Luxury Crops Luxury crops are replacing staples on some California farms. OPEN Graphic Some farmers, as well as California residents who blame farming for the state's water woes, shake their heads at that. Westlands farmers note that their fields are among the most water efficient anywhere. “We just have to stay in line until we get someone in the White House who is going to listen to us," Mr. Coburn said. “This is about politics, not rain ." Bargaining With Regulators Indeed, even as efforts to cajole more water from Congress stalled this autumn, Westlands' managers and their lawyers were sealing a very different bargain with water regulators at the Interior Department. Westlands' first farmers won Congress's blessing to tap the Central Valley Project, knowing that their fields had a flaw: Beneath them, a layer of clay kept water from draining away. Irrigating the fields would release salts and toxic elements like selenium and boron - which, trapped in the soil, would eventually turn the ground barren. The 1960 law that extended federal water to Westlands included a solution: a 188-mile canal, built by the government and later to be paid for by Westlands, to carry the irrigation runoff away. But in the early 1980s, local opponents stopped the ditch at mile 85 amid a federal wildlife refuge, where selenium-laden irrigation runoff quickly wiped out birds and fish. Since then, Westlands and the Bureau of Reclamation have battled over how to handle the toxic runoff. The safest and most cost-effective fix, buying and fallowing fully half of the Westlands fields, was rejected. But the remaining options, which would fallow less land and build desalination plants to purify the runoff, would cost billions - more than Westlands or the Bureau of Reclamation could afford or were willing to pay. In September, the two sides settled their three-decade dispute. But the agreement has only spawned more contention among supporters and critics of Westlands. Under the accord, Westlands frees the government of its obligation in the 1960 law to provide drainage, promising to solve the problem on its own. In return, the $350 million debt Westlands still owes for the infrastructure that delivered federal water would be written off. Its 25-year contract for a share of Northern California river water would be made permanent, and its rate would become among the lowest available. The negotiations took years. Three months after Mr. Obama took office, Westlands made a tactical switch, paying Tony Coelho, a former representative from California, to advise on the negotiations. Mr. Coelho, one of the most powerful Democrats in Congress in the 1980s, once represented the district that included Westlands and the wildlife refuge that was devastated by selenium pollution. He said that the notion of Westlands as a bully, flattening Northern Californians in its thirst for water, was a canard. A footprint in the mineral-crusted, dried banks of the San Luis Reservoir. Credit Damon Winter/The New York Times Photo A tractor kicked up dust in a field in the district, which is in California's Central Valley. Credit Damon Winter/The New York Times “It takes two sides to have a fight," he said in an interview. “The people in the Bay Area haven't been pansies. They're more effective, I would say, than Westlands in preventing Westlands from doing things, and as a result, a lot of people are going out of business because water hasn't been there ." That is not a universal view. “Every study I 've seen, farmers make more money when there's drought than when there isn't," said Mr. Beard, the Bureau of Reclamation director under President Clinton. “I wouldn't be at all surprised if they end up on the top of the heap again ." An Expensive Campaign The environmental curbs that San Joaquin Valley farmers blame for their water shortages might have been lifted by state and federal legislators years ago, but for one hitch: Californians appear to support them. In early 2013, Westlands placed a million-dollar bet that it could change that calculus. That March, a retired Mexican diplomat, Martha Elvia Rosas, held a news conference in Fresno to introduce a new group, El Agua Es Asunto de Todos - an effort, she said, to give Latinos a louder voice in the debate over drought. Ms. Rosas promised a campaign on Spanish-language radio, television, social media and in newspapers to show Latinos how important water was to their future. And she played commercials that would soon blanket Spanish-language media: ordinary Latinos in cars and on doorsteps, delivering a simple message: “Sin agua, sin trabajo." No water, no work. An account of the announcement stated that El Agua was financed by donations from Ms. Rosas' friends, family and local community leaders. But Westlands records show that the group emerged from a $915,000 contract between the water district and a Manhattan political campaign firm, the Fenenbock Group. A Los Angeles casting agency takes credit on its website for providing the Latinos in the commercials. The social media campaign and other emblems of support, from El Agua posters and stickers to El Agua hand fans, were produced by a New York creative agency. The San Francisco studio that produced the commercials states that the campaign's aim is to “generate voter action” in the face of Northern Californians' efforts to cut off farm water supplies. Mr. Amaral, Westlands' deputy general manager, denied that, calling El Agua “purely an educational initiative." As a quasi-governmental agency, he said, Westlands is barred from promoting political initiatives. Cows grazing in parched hills along Interstate 5 in the Central Valley. Credit Damon Winter/The New York Times Michael Fenenbock, the architect of the campaign, said it had vaulted water from a nonissue among California Latinos to a top concern. Moreover, he said, many Latinos now see environmental regulations as the cause of water shortages, and farmers as sympathetic figures. “It's been explosive," Mr. Fenenbock said, adding that many Latinos now “very strongly support what we think is the centerpiece of the debate: a reliable water supply that is very much on the side of agriculture." The Fenenbock Group has spent $700,000 on ads this year and could spend $3 million in 2016 as election-year interest in water heats up, said Daphne Weisbart, the firm's chief executive and Mr. Fenenbock's wife. Westlands financed most of the group's operations in 2013, but Ms. Weisbart said that a number of agricultural water districts now pay for the ads. Westlands' financial records indicate that it has paid nearly $250,000 since 2014 to a consulting company run by Ms. Rosas, and Westlands continues to pay virtually all of El Agua's $14,000-a-month operating budget, Ms. Rosas said. Ms. Rosas insisted that Westlands received nothing in return. “They do not dictate what we say," Ms. Rosas said. “We have made it clear from the start that we are in charge of this. This is our project, they are not in control." But Mr. Fenenbock said he was contemplating forming an El Agua political arm. Its contributions would carry weight with politicians, he said, because among many California Latinos, what El Agua says about water is taken as the truth. “The brand," he said, “is golden." The Parched West: Exploring the Impact of Drought Correction: January 1, 2016 An article on Thursday about lobbying efforts by California farmers to get more irrigation water referred incorrectly in some editions to the location where the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers meet. It is east of San Francisco, not west.
-
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Widely Used Pesticides Harm Bees in Some Situations~~Widely used pesticide can harm bees in some cases -EPA Wed Jan 6, 2016 10:28pm GMT By P.J. Huffstutter CHICAGO Jan 6 (Reuters) - An insecticide widely used on cotton plants and citrus groves can harm bees that come into contact with those crops under certain conditions, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said on Wednesday. The agency said a preliminary risk assessment of imidacloprid, a neonicotinoid insecticide chemically similar to nicotine, found that chemical residues of more than 25 parts per billion would likely harm bees and their hives and result in the bees producing less honey. The EPA, which collaborated with California's Department of Pesticide Regulation, said data showed imidacloprid residues in pollen and nectar above that threshold level in citrus and cotton crops. But residues found on corn and leafy vegetables were below at-risk levels, the agency said. Some crops needed more testing. The federal agency is expected to finalize a broader assessment of risks the chemical may pose to pollinators by the end of the year. Debate over neonicotinoids, also known as neonics, has intensified as concern grows over the health of pollinators crucial to the production of many foods. A two-year moratorium on imidacloprid and two other neonics took effect in Europe last year. The EPA proposed a rule last year to create temporary pesticide-free zones when crops are in bloom and farmers are using commercial pollinators such as bees. On Wednesday, the Center for Food Safety and a coalition of farmers and agriculture groups filed a lawsuit against the EPA, accusing it of failed oversight over millions of pounds of neonic-coated seeds sold and planted. ~ ~ The case was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The EPA could not be reached for comment. Pesticide critics called on the EPA on Wednesday to suspend the sale and use of imidacloprid and other neonicotinoid pesticides. "They're not taking into account the realistic exposures in the field, they're not looking at the impact of these pesticides on bees or wild pollinators over time," said Lisa Archer, food and technology program director at Friends of the Earth. Bayer CropScience, Syngenta AG and other firms that produce or sell neonic products have said mite infestations and other factors are to blame for bee deaths. Bayer Cropscience said in a statement it was reviewing the EPA's preliminary findings, but added they appeared to "overestimate the potential for harmful exposures in certain crops, such as citrus and cotton, while ignoring the important benefits these products provide and management practices to protect bees." (Reporting by P.J. Huffstutter in Chicago; Editing by Peter Cooney)
-
Climate change: Food production could fall by 10% in 50 years~~Environment . Climate change: Cereal harvests across the world 'fall by 10% in 50 years' Impact of droughts and heatwaves stronger in recent decades, especially in developed countries Steve Connor Science Editor @SteveAConnor Droughts and heatwaves have reduced cereal harvests by an average of about 10 per cent globally over the past half century, and their impact has become stronger in recent decades especially in developed countries, a study has found. Climate change is expected to increase the risk of severe drought and extreme heat and now the first detailed analysis of global cereal production has shown that harvests of wheat, maize and rice have suffered greater losses since the 1980s from drought and heat compared to previous decades. The findings question whether increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are having a discernible “fertilising effect” on crop production that could outweigh the damaging effect on harvests caused by extreme weather events such as droughts and heatwaves exacerbated by global warming. An analysis of national production of 16 different cereal crops in 177 countries, and a comparison with the effects of about 2,800 weather disasters between 1964 and 2007, has for the first time provided a detailed snapshot of how extreme weather has affected overall cereal production globally, scientists said. The study found that drought and heatwaves reduced cereal harvests by between 9 per cent and 10 per cent on average in the affected countries. However, the technically advanced arable farms of North America, Europe and Australia were even more strongly affected than the developing world, with average production cuts of about 20 per cent. “We found that extreme weather disasters such as droughts and heatwaves substantially reduce crop production, and the impacts are worse in richer countries," said Pedram Rowhani of Sussex University and a co-author of the study. “The frequency and severity of these extreme weather events is expected to increase in the future. If we do not adapt our agricultural systems to become more resilient to these shocks we can anticipate even larger losses in the future," Dr Rowhani said. The analysis, published in the journal Nature, found that losses in average cereal producton caused by more recent droughts had increased in more recent years, with average reductions of about 13.7 per cent compared to losses of about 6.7 per cent prior to the mid-1980s. However, the analysis also showed that cereal production soon bounced back after a drought year. “We have always known that extreme weather causes crop production losses. But until now we did not know exactly how much global production was lost to such extreme weather events, and how they varied by different regions of the world," said Navin Ramankutty, professor of global food security and sustainability at the University of British Columbia in Canada, and senior author. One of the most suprising findings was that advanced countries were apparently more susceptible to crop losses due to droughts and heatwaves compared to less advanced nations. This may reflect differences in scale and the farming methods employed in growing and harvesting cereals, the scientists said. “Across the breadbaskets of North America, for example, the crops and methods of farming are very uniform across huge areas, so if a drought hits in a way that is damaging to those crops, they will all suffer," said Corey Lesk of McGill University in Montreal, the study's first author. “By contrast, in much of the developing world, the cropping systems are a patchwork of small fields with diverse crops. If a drought hits, some of those crops may be damaged, but others may survive," Mr Lesk said. Farmers in wealthier countries rarely depend on harvests directly for food, and typically have dependable access to crop insurance in the event of bad weather, he said. “So the optimal strategy for them may be to maximize yields rather than minimize the risk of weather-related crop damage ." http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-cereal-harvests-across-the-world-fall-by-10-in-50-years-a6799666.html
-
2016 U.S. Agriculture Faces Difficulties~ ~ In 2016, a tough row to hoe on the farm A strong dollar, China's slowdown, political upheaval in Latin America and a global grain glut will all combine to make 2016 another challenging year for the American farmer. For 2015, the U.S. Department of Agriculture forecasts farm income will drop 38 percent to $55.9 billion, the lowest in a decade. This agriculture sector contraction comes after years of robust expansion. According to the USDA, net farm income went from just over $50 billion in 2000 to close to $130 billion in 2013, a nearly threefold increase. Much of that growth came thanks to a spike in trade with China, to which U.S. farm exports grew from just a few billion dollars in 2000 to a record $29.9 billion last year. China's subsequent slowdown has had a domino effect on countries like Brazil that have grown increasingly reliant on China as a market for their exports. Now, U.S. farmers find themselves going head-to-head with foreign competitors like Brazil, whose currency has been devalued, which makes its farm products a better bargain on world markets. But China's realignment isn't the only thing weighing on U.S. farmers' 2016 prospects. A recent regime change in Argentina has resulted in the emergence of yet another serious global competitor in an already crowded field of sellers with lots of product. For years, Argentina's government discouraged farm exports like soybeans by taxing them. With the recent election of former Buenos Aires mayor Mauricio Macri as president, Argentina is embracing a new free-market approach. Bob Young, chief economist with the American Farm Bureau, told CBS MoneyWatch Argentina's old taxation policy encouraged farmers to keep their products off the market if possible. "Right now, I bet more than half of the world's stockpile of soybeans is in Argentina," he said. Young believes Argentina's massive inventory puts the country in the position "to be the world's market maker ." Dan Kowalski, chief economist with CoBank, a national co-operative bank that serves the farming sector, said Brazil could also still bring in a record soybean harvest, adding even more product to the global marketplace. Kowalski said successive years of relatively favorable weather conditions around the world have produced record-breaking global inventories for corn, wheat and soybeans. "We already have a glut of wheat and other commodities," Kowalski told CBS MoneyWatch. "We have shifted from a demand-driven market to a supply market with these record crops ." Both Kowalski and Young said the drop in global oil prices will help U.S. farmers as they aim to cut costs to stay competitive and overcome the handicap of the strong dollar. "It's not only the direct energy costs of running farm equipment," said Young. "We'll see reduced costs for nitrogen fertilizer, thanks to the drop in natural gas prices" because gas is used to make nitrogen. "No doubt as interest rates go up and commodity prices go down, it will get tougher," Young said. "It used to be you were competing with your neighbor down the street. Now it can be the farmer as far away as China ." "Farm borrowing is up, but the underlying equity and assets are still holding their value," said Kowalski. "We can get through this, but you have to pay attention to every detail ." . ©2015 CBS Interactive Inc.. All Rights Reserved.
-
EU corn production has been revised down to an eight-year low.~ ~ EU corn production lowered to eight-year low 2015-09-25 14:15 | source: China Grain Network the monthly supply and demand data released by the French analysis agency Strategic Grain Company in September showed that the EU corn production forecast for 2015/16 was lowered to the lowest level in eight years. Strategic cereals this month cut its 2015/16 EU corn production forecast by 2.3 million tons to 57.4 million tons, the lowest level in eight years, as hot and dry weather affects the yield potential of corn crops. The very hot and dry weather in August further threatened the corn yield potential in central and southeastern Europe, especially Poland, Germany, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Croatia, according to Strategic Grain. The latest maize yield data is 24% lower than the previous year, and the maize yield is expected to be 6.1 tons/ha. In contrast, the European Commission expects EU maize production to be 58.75 million tons per hectare in 2015/16, with a yield of 6.3 tons per hectare. (Source: Sina Finance)
-
Prospects for U.S. Ethanol Production and Corn Consumption in 2016~ ~ prospects for U.S. Ethanol Production and Corn Consumption in 2016 2015-12-31 11:17 | source: Game Master according to Professor Darrell Goode, an agronomist at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, the consumption demand for conventional ethanol (ethanol produced from corn) in the United States in 2016 may be lower than earlier expected. According to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the U.S. produced 14.313 billion gallons of fuel ethanol in the 2014 Gregorian calendar year, an increase of 1.02 billion gallons from 2013 and 0.384 billion gallons higher than the previous historical record set in 2011. U.S. energy information administration data show that in the first nine months of 2015, the United States ethanol production increased by 3.6. In addition, ethanol production in October and November this year was 3.1 percent higher than a year earlier. December's output is likely to be slightly below the monthly record of 1.295 billion gallons set a year earlier. For all of 2015, ethanol production is likely to increase by at least 3 percent over the previous year, to 14.745 billion gallons, which would require 5.25 billion bushels of feedstock, mostly corn. Based on the U.S. Energy Information Administration's fuel ethanol production, imports, exports, and changes in domestic inventory levels, U.S. domestic ethanol consumption data can be calculated. Ethanol consumption reached a record 13.444 billion gallons in 2014, of which 13.353 billion gallons were conventional ethanol. Consumption in the first nine months of this year is up 4% from a year earlier, and at that rate, the annual consumption will reach 13.982 billion gallons, 13.897 billion of which is conventional ethanol. Domestic ethanol consumption in the coming year will be affected by two related factors. The first is the renewable fuel consumption standard from 2014 to 2016 issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on November 30, requiring biofuel consumption to reach 18.11 billion gallons in 2016, 1.18 billion gallons higher than in 2015 and 0.71 billion gallons higher than the preliminary standard set in May. The standard for advanced biofuels was set at 3.61 billion gallons, 0.73 billion gallons higher than the 2015 standard and 0.38 billion gallons higher than the preliminary standard. The demand for conventional biofuel (ethanol) can be estimated by subtracting the demand for advanced biofuel from the biofuel usage target. The demand for conventional biofuel in 2016 was 14.5 billion gallons, up from 14.05 billion gallons in 2015 and 14 billion gallons in 2016. The second factor affecting domestic ethanol consumption in the United States is the scale of gasoline consumption. Based on the forecast of the U.S. Energy Information Administration, gasoline consumption will reach 139.38 billion gallons in 2015 and 139.96 billion gallons in 2016, which means that after an increase of 2.9 billion gallons in 2015, it will increase by 0.58 billion gallons in 2016. If the blending ratio is 10%, that is, E10 ethanol, the conventional ethanol consumption in 2016 will be only 13.996 billion gallons, which is lower than the 14.5 billion gallons of conventional ethanol demand in 2016 calculated above. This shows that the consumption of E10 fuel may increase slightly, while the share of E15 and E85 with higher blending ratio in the US fuel supply will increase. In other words, if the 2016 gasoline consumption forecast is accurate, the E10 blending wall will be 13.996 billion gallons. Since some gasoline consumption is not blended with ethanol, and some gasoline consumption is blended with a higher proportion of ethanol, the efficiency of E10 blending wall can be regarded as 13.856 billion gallons, accounting for 9.9 of the total gasoline consumption. High-grade ethanol will account for a proportion of the 13.856 billion-gallon consumption, including cellulosic ethanol, but mainly imported from Brazil. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency expects only 85 million gallons of high-grade ethanol consumption in 2015, of which 70 million gallons will be Brazilian ethanol. That consumption will increase to 0.249 billion gallons in 2016 as California changes fuel standards and the United States imports more Brazilian ethanol. This would reduce the conventional E10 blended wall to 13.607 billion gallons. Some ethanol will be consumed at high blending rates, primarily E85, I .e., gasoline blended with 85% ethanol. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency expects 2016 E85 consumption to be 0.4 billion gallons, which is equivalent to 0.296 billion gallons of ethanol if the average blending rate is 74%. Conventional ethanol consumption will reach 13.903 billion gallons, roughly the same as in 2015. If the import of ethanol in 2016 is close to the level of 2015, there will be no change in the level of ethanol inventory in 2016. The domestic consumption level of conventional ethanol in 2016 indicates that the demand for conventional ethanol in 2016 will be equivalent to that in 2015. This result is very different from the original expectation that the increase in the biofuel consumption target in 2016 will cause a significant increase in corn demand in the conventional ethanol industry. There are two reasons for the more conservative level of domestic conventional ethanol consumption expectations in 2016. First, domestic gasoline consumption forecasts are conservative. Given the continued slump in gasoline prices, a more plausible scenario may be that gasoline consumption will be about 2 billion gallons higher than currently expected by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Second, ethanol import expectations may be too high, depending on how California's fuel policy is implemented. On the other hand, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's E85 fuel consumption forecast for 2016 may be somewhat too high. Domestic conventional ethanol consumption in 2016 could be 0.2 billion gallons higher than expected, requiring an additional 70 million bushels of feedstock. Nevertheless, feedstock consumption is likely to be slightly higher than in 2015. A significant increase in raw material consumption will require a significant increase in domestic gasoline consumption, a significant increase in ethanol blending and an increase in ethanol exports.
-
Paris climate talks: US leadership vital to agriculture's future~~December 04, 2015, 10:00 am US leadership at Paris climate talks critical to future of agriculture By former Reps. Douglas Bereuter (R-Neb.) and Dan Glickman (D-Kan.) No industry in the United States or around the world is more vulnerable to a changing climate than agriculture. Simply put: it's an outdoor industry. It's raising animals. It's growing crops. And it's very dependent on cooperative weather for its success. Like all industries, agriculture has its supply and demand challenges, but in no other industry does the weather dictate the survival or failure of individual producers. If the United States plans to successfully lead on climate change at COP21 in Paris this week, then we must understand that failure to reach a climate change agreement means failure for farmers, in the United States and worldwide. Climate change causes uniquely severe and unpredictable weather. This isn't just bad for farmers-it's harmful for everyone. Catastrophic weather patterns lead to farm failures, food shortages, and price volatility. These issues hit the most vulnerable farmers in poor- and middle-income countries the hardest, but producers in the United States are not immune. The supply chains that stock American grocery stores extend to all continents, and American farmers, too, fail when floods or drought strike their land-a fact leaders in the agriculture community and Washington should not forget. Failure to reach an agreement in Paris at COP21 would mean a continued, growing disaster for farmers and food supplies across the world. Beyond farmers, the stability of entire nations depends on productive, sustainable farms. In 2008, when drought, among other factors, caused global food prices to spike, at least 30 countries fell prey to civil unrest. In Syria alone, drought in the middle of the last decade turned more than a million farmers into internal refugees, beginning the civil instability that some observers argue sparked the ongoing Syrian civil war. But Syria is not unique. Across the Middle East, Africa, Pakistan, and other desert regions, climate change means fewer and less predictable rains and higher temperatures. This means more failed farms. More food insecurity. Less civil stability. The relationship between volatile weather, volatile food supplies, and volatile societies is clear-and as climate change worsens, food security around the world is threatened, and with it, the stability of nations. In California, drought has put the state's $54 billion agriculture industry on life support-aquifers are draining so rapidly the ground is literally sinking. On the Plains, America's breadbasket, the Ogallala aquifer is dropping by two feet annually-in Kansas, if current dry conditions persist, agriculture will outpace water supplies as soon as 2040. Climate change is bigger than drought, though: this spring alone, Indiana farmers lost $300 million in crops to flooding. If climate change is not properly addressed, the Midwest can likely expect wetter growing seasons and more torrential rains in the years to come. The implications of climate change are enormous, and the United States must lead for the world in acting to adapt and mitigate these changes. To do our part, we co-chaired a report from The Chicago Council on Global Affairs in 2014 that examined ways to achieve food security in the face of climate change. Our top finding then remains our top recommendation now: make agriculture central to any agreement on climate change. For COP21 Paris to be a success, and for American farmers to thrive long into the future, the United States must lead on climate change and must see to it that Paris ends in an actionable agreement. Likewise, the US agriculture community and consumers alike ought to support efforts to mitigate climate change. It is critical to ensuring that the future of agriculture-in the United States and around the world- thrives. Bereuter served in the House from 1979 to 2004. He is president emeritus of the Asia Foundation. Glickman served in the House from 1977 to 1995. He was secretary of Agriculture from 1995 to 2001. The two are co-chairs of the Global Agricultural Development Initiative at The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, a non-partisan Chicago-based think tank, and co-chaired the Chicago Council report, Advancing Global Food Security in the Face of a Changing Climate. http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-environment/262035-us-leadership-at-paris-climate-talks-critical-to
-
USDA to eliminate subsidies for agricultural managers who are not active in farming~~USDA Removes Farm Program Payments to Managers Not Actively Engaged in Farming WASHINGTON, Dec. 15, 2015 - The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) today finalized a rule to ensure that farm safety-net payments are issued only to active managers of farms that operate as joint ventures or general partnerships, consistent with the direction and authority provide by Congress in the 2014 Farm Bill. The action, which exempts family farm operations, closes a loophole where individuals who were not actively part of farm management still received payments. "The federal farm safety-net programs are designed to protect against unanticipated changes in the marketplace for those who actively share in the risk of that farming operation," said Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. "To ensure that help goes to those who genuinely need it, such as America's farm families, the Farm Bill authorized USDA to close a loophole and limit payments from those not involved on a daily basis in nonfamily farm management ." Since 1987, the broad definition of "actively engaged" resulted in some general partnerships and joint ventures adding managers to the farming operation, qualifying for more payments, that did not substantially contribute to management. The rule applies to operations seeking more than one farm manager, and requires measureable, documented hours and key management activities each year. Some operations of certain sizes and complexity may be allowed up to three qualifying managers under limited conditions. The changes apply to payments for 2016 and subsequent crop years for Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) and Price Loss Coverage (PLC) Programs, Loan Deficiency Payments (LDP) and Marketing Loan Gains (MLG) realized via the Marketing Assistance Loan program. As required by Congress, the new rule does not apply to family farms, or change regulations related to contributions of land, capital, equipment, or labor. The changes go into effect for the 2016 crop year for most farms. Farms that have already planted fall crops for 2016 have until the 2017 crop year to comply. For more details, producers are encouraged to consult their local Farm Service Agency office. Today's announcement was made possible by the 2014 Farm Bill, which builds on historic economic gains in rural America over the past six years, while achieving meaningful reform and billions of dollars in savings for the taxpayer. Since enactment, USDA has made significant progress to implement each provision of this critical legislation, including providing disaster relief to farmers and ranchers; strengthening risk management tools; expanding access to rural credit; funding critical research; establishing innovative public-private conservation partnerships; developing new markets for rural-made products; and investing in infrastructure, housing and community facilities to help improve quality of life in rural America. For more information, visit www.usda.gov/farmbill. To learn more about Farm Service Agency, visit www.fsa.usda.gov. # USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. To file a complaint of discrimination, write: USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (866) 632-9992 (Toll-free Customer Service), (800) 877-8339 (Local or Federal relay), (866) 377-8642 (Relay voice users). http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentid=2015/12/0342.xml&contentidonly=true
-
The decline in agricultural income affects the ability of American farmers to tighten supply.~ ~ Falling incomes curb U.S. farmers' ability to hold back supplies LONDON | By Nigel Hunt Reuters/Robert Galbraith Falling incomes in the U.S. will make it more challenging for farmers to hold stocks as they wait for prices to recover from current depressed levels, U.S. Department of Agriculture chief economist Robert Johansson said. "Now (U.S.) producers are holding more stocks waiting for a better price but we've seen that farm incomes are coming down so the ability to hold that crop without selling it is somewhat limited," he told Reuters on the sidelines of a food conference at London's Chatham House. U.S. farm incomes are expected to drop in 2015 to a 13-year low due to weaker crop and livestock prices, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said last month. World food prices have been dragged down by a strong dollar and ample supplies. A monthly index of prices put out by the United Nations food agency earlier this month was 18 percent lower than a year earlier. The strength of the dollar had added to the challenge faced by U.S. producers and exporters. "If you look at the last year-and-a-half the dollar has appreciated remarkably against our competitor currencies. Our grains, oilseeds and livestock producers are really getting hammered by the high dollar value," Johansson said. In contrast, local currencies in rival exporters such as Brazil and the European Union have been weak. "In Brazil, producers of maize and soybeans are seeing prices (in local currency terms) that are similar to historic prices we had three of four years ago," he said. "They have an incentive to continue increasing production. Our producers are facing a harder export environment ." Johansson said USDA was always looking to improve the accuracy of its forecasts although he saw little immediate role for devices such as yields monitors which can be attached to tractors or combine harvesters. "I have a couple of projects out there looking to see how that could affect our provision of information," he said. These could provide data on trends in crop planting, for example, particularly for the U.S. where tractors tended to be newer and are more likely to be fitted with such devices. "As we move forward I would imagine that data would become better. We will continue to evaluate it but right now we are pretty happy with how NASS (National Agricultural Statistics Service) is doing their field surveys in the United States," Johansson said. He also saw no major role for drones. "Drones right now are able to detect pest outbreaks in fields so you could argue they would be very good for USDA it is just that the coverage is too spotty," he said. (Reporting by Nigel Hunt; editing by Susan Thomas) http://www.reuters.com/article/us-grains-usda-johansson-idUSKBN0TR1YA20151208
-
EU relentations, will work to abolish agricultural subsidies in developed countries~ ~ Africa: U.S and EU Soften Stance, Commit to Scrap Farm Subsidies in Rich Countries By Lilian Ochieng The US and the European Union on Wednesday softened their stance, saying they fully support the removal of farm subsidies -- the contentious agenda from African countries at the ongoing WTO conference. The EU Commissioner for agriculture and rural development Phil Hogan on Wednesday said that the EU called for the removal of subsidies on farmers in the developed countries at the WTO ministerial meeting in Hong Kong, 10 years ago. "We were willing to stop subsidising our farmers (using export refunds) as part of a broader deal that would be adopted by other developed countries. Ten years later, we are waiting on other players on the world to react to this proposal," said Mr Hogan. Since 2013, the EU has kept its pledge to cut subsidies on its farmers. The EU support to farmers, however, is not directly linked to production. Mr Hogan said that the only support to farmers now ensures that they are in a position to reside in remote rural areas. The support is also given to people, who want to create new job opportunities to the state's rural development programme. EXPORT COMPETITION The EU commissioner for Trade Cecilia Malmstrom added that the bloc is in full support of removal of all barriers to trade in African countries, especially the least developed ones. She said that the EU supports the removal of the four pillars of export competition that distort trade; food aid, export refunds, export credits and state trading enterprises. In general, the EU is looking to come out with a comprehensive package from the WTO talks, which favours both least developed countries as well as the developed ones. "We are speaking on behalf of 28 countries, we are keen on contributing to a strong outcome of the Doha rounds in Nairobi, we are especially here to make sure Least Developed Countries also benefit from the negotiations," said Ms Malmstrom. US Trade Representative Michael Froman said that America was welcome to a resolution of the contested issues in Nairobi. Mr Froman exuded optimism that the WTO talks would achieve a "measured but meaningful outcome" particularly on the Doha proposals. Reach a deal "We are very focused on trying to achieve a measured but meaningful package of outcomes related to the Doha agenda, including around agriculture and also LDC-related issues. We are hopeful that we will be able to work with other parties," Mr Froman said. He, however, said that it will not be a walk in the park to reach a deal on the contested issues. "There is a lot of work to be done in that regard but we have confidence in Ambassador Mohammed and director Azevedo," said Mr Froman. http://allafrica.com/stories/201512170353.html
-
TPP is important for American agriculture.~~TPP a big deal for U.S. agriculture December 8, 2015 Never miss the latest news affecting Ohio agriculture. Subscribe to Digital Dale and follow along via Facebook and Twitter. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement is a big deal for U.S. agriculture. “The TPP negotiation is the largest regional free trade agreement struck in the past 20 years. Now it has to be ratified by all of the participants," said Ian Sheldon, Ohio State University ag economist. “TPP is significant because the countries account for 40% of global GDP. I have my doubts, though, as to whether we are going to see this ratified in the U.S until after the next election ." The partnership includes 12 countries: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam and the United States. The agreement is anticipated to reduce more than 18,000 tariffs, including some agricultural trade barriers. Although the full agreement has yet to be published publicly, several institutions are forecasting impressive economic growth under TPP. The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service estimates that TPP will result in a 6.6% increase in agricultural trade by 2025. This increase will account for an additional $8.5 billion in the agricultural marketplace, assuming the complete elimination of existing agricultural tariffs by 2025, Sheldon said. Additionally, the ERS anticipates that the agreement will result in a 33% overall increase in U.S. exports and a 10% increase in imports by 2025. Like any trade deals, there are winners and losers with the TPP, and Sheldon said that U.S. agriculture is a big winner, largely at the expense of Japanese agriculture. “U.S. ag exports with TPP will increase by $2.8 billon - a 33% increase in market share. The U.S. will be the big winner and most of the gains will be coming from Japan. Japan will account for a 68% increase in agricultural imports. Beef and dairy products will account for 25% and 19% respectively of increased value with TPP trade," Sheldon said. In addition, the Peterson Institute for International Economics, a private, nonprofit and nonpartisan research institute, estimates that under TPP, $225 billion will be added to global gross domestic product by 2025, including $77 billion to U.S. GDP. The institute forecasts that U.S. manufacturing industry exports will grow by about 4.5% by 2025 due to TPP. However, Sheldon said, some of the biggest winners look to be smaller countries involved in the partnership, such as Vietnam. “We will see a much bigger impact on some of the emerging economies included in the negotiations," Sheldon said. “For example, Vietnam is anticipated to receive a 10.5% increase in GDP thanks to TPP. My sense is that Vietnam is a winner because China is not in the agreement ." Vietnam, which is a low labor cost economy, will expand as a manufacturing hub in industries such as textiles, and will have preferential access to these other 11 economies included in the agreement, he said. “However, at the same time, it looks like the agreement partners are trying to tighten up things like state-owned enterprises, which would impact Vietnam since it is a communist country," Sheldon said. “These stipulations could also impact China, should it choose to participate in the future ." Sheldon said the long-term objective of TPP is to align Asian economies and serve as a template for future free trade agreements that might include China. Additionally, Sheldon said that the agreement is anticipated to have an important impact on trade in services, rules on intellectual property rights, as well as environmental and labor regulations. Sheldon's talk was part of yesterday's kickoff of the 2015-2016 Agricultural Policy and Outlook series from Ohio State University's College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics (AEDE). The event initiates a series of local meetings to be held statewide. The meetings will feature presentations by AEDE experts on matters the agricultural community should expect in 2016, including policy changes, key issues and market behavior with respect to farm, food and energy resources, and the environment. In addition to Sheldon, speakers for the series include: •Matt Roberts, a grain economist, who will discuss his outlook for the 2016 grain market. •Brent Sohngen, an environmental economist, who will present an analysis of President Barack Obama's Clean Power Plan and its possible impact on Ohio. •Ani Katchova, leader of Ohio State's Farm Income Enhancement program, who will discuss farm transitions in U.S. agriculture. •Barry Ward, leader of OSU Extension's Production Business Management program, who will present an analysis of land values, cash rents, crop input costs and potential crop profitability in 2016. The county meetings, which are open to the public, will be held on the following dates: •Dec. 16, 4 p.m., at the Attica Fairgrounds Social Hall, 15131 E. Township Road 12 in Attica. RSVP: Jon Ewald, jewald@suttonbank.com or 800-422-3641, or register online at www.suttonbank.com by Dec. 9. Cost: free with reservation by Dec. 9; $20 without a reservation. •Jan. 20, 8:30 a.m., at Der Dutchman, 445 S. Jefferson Ave., in Plain City. RSVP: Union County Extension, 937-644-8117 by Jan. 13. Cost: $10. •Jan. 20, 4 p.m., at the Bellevue VFW Hall, 6104 U.S. Route 20 in Bellevue. RSVP: Valerie Bumb, BumbV@fnblifetime.com or 419-483-7340 by Jan. 13. Cost: free with reservation; $22 without a reservation. •Jan. 22, 9:30 a.m., at the Fisher Auditorium at the Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, 1680 Madison Ave. in Wooster. RSVP: Wayne County Extension, lewandowski.11@osu.edu or 330-264-8722 by Jan. 15. Cost: $15. •Feb. 15, 7:30 a.m., at the Trinity Lutheran Church, Noecker Hall, 135 East Mound St. in Circleville. RSVP: Pickaway County Extension, 740-474-7534 by Feb. 8. Cost: $10. •Feb. 19, noon, at Romer's Party Room, 118 East Main St. in Greenville. RSVP: Darke County Extension, custer.2@osu.edu or 937-548-5215 by Feb. 12. Cost: $20. •Feb. 24, 6 p.m., at the Jewell Community Center, 7900 Independence Road in Defiance. RSVP: Defiance County Extension, clevenger.10@osu.edu or 419-782-4771 by Feb. 19. Cost: $15 in advance or $30 at the door. A meal is provided at each meeting and is included in the registration cost. Questions can be directed to the local hosts noted above. Additionally, a new offering this year is a webinar to enable participants to join remotely from their own home or office. The webinar will be held on Feb. 1 at 6:30 p.m. RSVP at regonline.com/AgOutlook2016 by Jan. 25. Cost: $10.
-
Climate Change Action After Paris~ ~ Climate Action After Paris WASHINGTON, DC - At the United Nations climate conference in Paris, courageous and visionary leaders recognized that people rarely change the world when they work within the constraints of what they think is possible. The world hoped for an agreement, but most of us did not dare to dream of a deal that aspires to limit temperatures to 1.5° Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Paris delivered for the planet and for the poor. First, we need to approach development differently. Climate change must be considered in all of our work - from building cleaner cities to producing more food on less land - with a much stronger focus on adapting to changing climate patterns. This means that when we build a road in a country like Mozambique, we are also ensuring that it is resilient to the floods that accompany incessant rains. To this end, the World Bank unveiled a new climate action plan in Paris to help Sub-Saharan Africa in the years ahead. Second, we need a clean-energy transformation at the speed and scale of the digital revolution. The Paris talks sent a clear signal to markets, public officials, and investors that low-carbon growth is the future. Market forces will drive this agenda forward, and there will be greater potential to invest in renewable energy in developing countries than ever before. Dramatic decreases in the cost of low-carbon technologies also support an ambitious global transition toward renewable energy. One example is Bangladesh's innovations in increasing the sale of solar-power systems for homes in rural areas. Our low-cost financing helped to attract tremendous interest from the private sector, and today Bangladesh has the fastest-growing solar-home program in the world. More than 18.5 million people in rural areas now have reliable access to solar-powered electricity. Third, businesses must immediately become climate literate. In Paris, CEOs from various industries - ranging from cement to technology companies - made clear pledges to decrease carbon footprints, invest in renewables, and manage resources sustainably. This transition will require more partnerships across all levels of government, civil society, and the private sector. Fourth, world leaders must push harder for carbon pricing. Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels carry a hefty price. It's a bill that comes to all of us in the form of public-health costs, damage to the environment, and adverse weather effects. While about 40 countries and 23 cities, states, and regions are using a carbon price, this covers only 12% of annual greenhouse-gas emissions. More than 90 developed and developing countries included carbon-pricing schemes among the actions they intend to take after the Paris deal. This is a welcome step. Finally, finance will be critical. National climate action plans - submitted by more than 180 countries - identify trillions of dollars of climate-related needs. This global economic transition holds tremendous investment opportunities for the private sector. The risks of carbon are high, but the opportunities to de-carbonize are even greater. For our part, we recently pledged to increase the World Bank Group's climate financing to as much as $29 billion annually by 2020. Every country will take a different path to deliver on its commitments. National leaders must honor the timetable for adaptation and emissions reductions. We are here to support them. We have plans that focus on climate-smart agriculture, building greener cities, increasing access to renewable energy, improving energy efficiency, and leveraging our finance for greater private investment. All are designed to lower greenhouse-gas emissions and help people adapt to the world's changing climate. The conference in Paris produced an agreement that went beyond our expectations. We must now move with ambition that matches this historic deal - one supported by nearly 200 countries. We are at a remarkable moment in the long battle to reduce harmful emissions, and we must capitalize on this global commitment to preserve our planet for future generations. Read more at https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/paris-climate-accord-further-action-by-jim-yong-kim-2015-12#Qp763PQxDeGS5ztD.99
-
Why seed banks are not the only answer to food security~ ~ Why seed banks aren't the only answer to food security Hopes are being pinned on backup vaults to rescue the seeds we're losing, but some simple changes in our diets can make a difference too author of Bread, Wine, Chocolate: The Slow Loss of Foods We Love Thursday 26 November 2015 12.01 GMT Last modified on Thursday 26 November 2015 12.26 GMT On 10 September, Dr Mahmoud Solh, director general of the International Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (Icarda), sent an urgent request to the Svalbard global seed vault asking for the return of collections of seeds once held in Aleppo, Syria. A few weeks later, 128 crates of seeds holding around 38,000 samples of wheat, barley, lentil, chickpea, fava bean, pea, grass pea and legumes were removed from the vault located in the frigid, snow-packed archipelago halfway between Norway and the north pole. These seeds are now being sown at research stations in Lebanon and Morocco in the hope that they will soon provide farmers and breeders in Syria, a country besieged by war, with new seeds and saplings. Roughly 80,000 species from Syria's collection remain in the vault, the backup system for the world's seed collections known as the “Noah's Ark of seeds ”. The withdrawal marked the first time the vault had been accessed, but it will likely not be the last. This is because, for the past century, there has been a dramatic reduction in the diversity of what we grow and eat. We're losing food diversity Seeds are the building blocks of every meal we eat: our fruits and vegetables, our grains and pulses, plus the meat that's raised on grass and grain. The loss of diversity of what we eat is a result of multiple factors, including the increased industrialisation and globalisation of agriculture that has seen farmers worldwide pushed to abandon multiple local plant varieties for genetically uniform, high-yielding varieties. According to data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Monsanto and Syngenta, along with two other companies, control more than 70% of the entire proprietary seed market. The top eight companies control 94% of the commercial market and the USDA report adds that these shares will likely continue to rise. When commercialised, both hybrids and genetically engineered seeds have to be repurchased every year because they won't render consistent results if saved and used in subsequent plantings, or because they are protected as the “intellectual property” of seed companies. Those who control seeds ultimately control food. Other contributing factors to the decline in diversity include pests and disease, global warming, habitat loss and socio-economic factors such as trade agreements, urbanisation, changing diets and a growing disconnect between farmers and consumers. Today, 95% of the world's calories come from 30 crops, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization. Analysis of 50 years of data on global diets confirms a worldwide trend toward meals comprising wheat, rice, potatoes, maize, soybean and palm oil. In areas of food insecurity, increased calories are vital, but it's dangerous for the same reason - investment experts tell us - to diversify our financial holdings: putting all our eggs in one basket increases risk. One disease, one pest, or the volatility of a changing climate, can imperil them all. Seed vaults alone aren't the answer The solution to this challenge has been placed almost entirely in the hands of conservationists who manage ex situ (out of place) collections, such as Icarda and the global seed vault, and repositories that hold genetic material ranging from microbes to honeybee sperm, plus field collections for plants that are not cultivated from seed (such as apples and grapes). However, the vault and other stored collections have neither the space nor the resources to preserve the world's myriad foods, and much of this material is saved under conditions where it can remain stable but is unable to respond to changing environmental conditions or threats. This is why in situ (in place) conservation is also critical. This means conserving wild places, such as forests, in which plants and animals can thrive and evolve, as well as conservation by farmers through the cultivation of diverse breeds and plant varieties. These methods are not guaranteed, however, because of the constant threat of deforestation and the fiscal challenges farmers face. Farmers, the stewards of food, operate on thin margins. They can't be expected to grow crops or raise livestock for which there is no market. We can make a difference While mass production favours standardisation, smaller-scale producers recognise we can't secure future food without diversification. This is where we, the eating public, come in. We can help support the businesses that are grappling with this challenge by developing a new way to preserve and sustain our agricultural biodiversity: saving foods by eating them. With few exceptions, consumers have been overlooked in the pursuit to save these disappearing foods. Yet, this fight can't be won without us. “Although it isn't immediately obvious that eating olive oil would be radical, in the big picture that's exactly what it is," says conservationist Colin Khoury. “Eating olive oil is now a radical act. Eating anything that's not rice, wheat, corn, soy or palm oil is radical ." We can make a difference by seeking out diverse varieties of foods, by stepping out of the comfort zone of rice, wheat, maize, soya and palm oil and demanding the food industry offers diversity not only in flavour but also in the types of ingredients used. Initiatives such as Slow Food's Ark of Taste identify and preserve these endangered foods, but the revolution is humble and starts on our plates by looking at the pillars of our own diets and by making simple changes. The way to take back this power for ourselves is to understand why we eat what we eat, and to understand what we're losing, so we know what to reclaim. http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/nov/26/why-seed-banks-arent-the-only-answer-to-food-security
-
Paris climate talks: a breakthrough for food security?~ ~ Frank Rijsberman Headshot Frank Rijsberman Become a fan CEO of CGIAR Consortium Is Food Security Breaking Through in Paris Climate Talks? Posted: 12/08/2015 12:33 pm EST Updated: 12/08/2015 1:59 pm EST The latest news from Paris is cautiously optimistic that we will have an agreement by Friday. What does it mean for agriculture and food security? Although the French government has shown great leadership championing agriculture at COP21, it is not yet really on the table for the negotiators. The good (and surprising) news comes from the commitments the countries have submitted. A recent CGIAR analysis of the first 150 country climate commitments (INDCs) submitted ahead of the UN climate talks revealed that countries appear to prioritize agriculture more than the negotiations have. 80% of commitments included agriculture in mitigation targets, and 64% included agriculture in adaptation strategies. Willingness to address agriculture and food security finally appears to be having some impact. As Tim Grooser, Climate Minister of New Zealand put it: "After many years of banging my head on a brick wall, trying to get attention for agriculture in UNFCCC, we are finally being heard". While this is unlikely to have a big impact on the result in Paris on Friday - it paves the way for more progress to be made in Marrakech at COP22, next year, via scientific (SBSTA) meetings held in Bonn in June 2016. 4 pour mille - solutions in soil One of the most promising new ideas at the Paris climate talks so far, is the French government's "4 pour mille" initiative. The name 4 pour mille (or 0.4%) refers to the annual increase in soil carbon, which would offset atmospheric carbon emissions. As the carbon reservoir in the soil is two to three times larger than all the carbon in the atmosphere, the initiative focuses attention on the huge potential agriculture has to become a critical part of climate change solutions. Agriculture and forestry alone can capture carbon from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, and sequester it in the soil. Increasing soil carbon not only mitigates climate change, it also increases - or restores - soil health and fertility, thereby helping agriculture to adapt to climate change and improve environmental health overall. Yields will go up, farms will be more resilient, and emissions will be reduced as a co-benefit. The private sector has made commitments in Paris aswell. A coalition of companies joined together under the umbrella of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development to focus on low carbon agriculture solutions. Monsanto has announced that its operations will be carbon neutral by 2021, in just 5 years. John Bryant, the CEO of Kelloggs, went a step further in Paris by not only committing to carbon neutrality for its own operations, but also to work with farmers in its supply chains to make half a million farmers climate smart. A proposal for the developing world In Paris CGIAR announced a $225 million proposal that would take climate smart agriculture and 4 pour mille to seven developing countries: Ghana, Senegal, Tanzania, Uganda, Vietnam, Nepal and Colombia. Farmers will co-develop and share widely climate-smart interventions that boost the levels of carbon captured in soils, such as conservation agriculture, agroforestry and improved forage systems. In those seven countries we estimate that farmers would be able to improve their agricultural yields by 20% and offset greenhouse gas emissions by 15% or 25 megatonnes of CO2e. This will contribute to CGIAR's own commitments to work, with partners, to reduce agriculture related emissions by 0.8 Gigaton, or 15%, by 2030, restore 190 million hectares of degraded land, save 7.5 million ha of forest from deforestation, and increase water and nutrient efficiency by 20%. Kan Conservation agriculture relies on several principles: minimizing soil disturbance, maintaining soil cover and practicing crop rotation. A farmer can realize an average yield increase of some 300kg per hectare in cereal yield by combining these approaches, and on the soil and local conditions, can increase organic matter in soils significantly. Ongoing CGIAR research is increasing our understanding of the mechanisms and conditions that affect the amounts of carbon captured in soils and the ability of soils to retain this carbon over time. Agroforestry can also make a significant difference. It is a form of inter-cropping that dedicates a share of cropped areas to trees. The most promising results in agroforestry come from the integration of Faidherbia albida trees, an indigenous African acacia, with food crops such as maize. These trees improve soil fertility by drawing nitrogen from the air and transferring it to the soil through their roots and shed leaves. This is being applied to several millions of hectares in Africa, for example in Zimbabwe, where crop yields can increase by 30 percent and sometimes more. The 4 pour mille initiative aims to demonstrates that agriculture can be a critical part of the climate change solution for adaptation and mitigation. We have to prioritize the capacity to adapt of resource poor smallholder families that have not contributed to the climate problem, but are the most vulnerable to its impacts, to ensure their access to healthy and affordable food. We need to ensure there is gainful employment for a new generation of African youth entering the labour market with few other options outside the agri-food system through climate compatible agriculture. And we can do so while developing low carbon, or even carbon-neutral farming systems. While agriculture and food security are the buzzwords at COP21 in Paris, and the door is now open, we have to make sure climate compatible agriculture is front and centre for the negotiators at COP22 in Marrakech. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-rijsberman/is-food-security-breaking_ B _8750512.html