Climate Change Events in DC

Last month, the Science Policy Office attended many climate change events, such as the CQ-Roll Call Climate Change Conference on various aspects of global warming, in the context of the Waxman-Markey Bill (cuts carbon emissions 17% by 2020) and the Kerry-Boxer Bill, now before the Senate (increases cuts to 20% and reduces allowances). Later in October, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee held three days of hearings on K-B. Sen. Kerry testified that his bill would balance the rising costs of farming in the Midwest by providing farmers extra income from carbon offsets and renewables production. USDA Secretary Vilsack submitted comments supporting this statement, assuring farmers and ranchers that such legislation will benefit them if quick action is taken. However, Bob Stallman, president of the Farm Bureau, stated that income to farmers from offsets will fail to make up for cost increases in food, fuel, and feed, crippling American agriculture.

It is generally accepted that legislation will change many aspects of business in the US, including agriculture. While much of the attention paid to agriculture and climate change focuses on offsets, the panelists at the Conference posited that it may be far more lucrative for farmers to produce renewable energy on the side, rather than offsetting carbon by resting land. For example, biogas produced from animal waste, grasses grown for cellulosic ethanol (also sequestering carbon dioxide), or wind turbines placed in the margins between fields can all provide added sources of income and/or energy. The Farm Bureau wants the USDA to assess whether potential revenue from offsets makes up for the increased costs to the farmer associated with those offsets. However, such studies have already been done.

Farmers are legitimately concerned that W-M makes no provisions for fossil fuel alternatives. Natural gas is a good alternative to oil, but is also used to produce fertilizer, and so its increased use as a fuel raises the price of synthetic fertilizer. More widespread employment of soil nutrient analysis would allow farmers to strategically fertilize, in many cases reducing the cost of fertilizer in their operations and the risk that nutrients will reach nearby bodies of water. There are also alternatives that can reduce the amount of synthetic fertilizers needed, such as chicken litter, although this can also cause problems with nutrient pollution. Efficiency is a relatively easy first step in addressing most aspects of climate change.

Many industries, including agriculture, are wary of the EPA, which has just issued their final Endangerment Findings on GHGs under the Clean Air Act. The Farm Bureau prefers to take their chances with legislation, but they are concerned that K-B leaves the Clean Air Act too powerful. According to the EPA, though, agriculture and forestry now sequester 11% of current GHGs and have the potential to offset upwards of 20%; there is much that can be done to clean up the responsible operations (mostly AFOs and CAFOs). Agriculture produces 7-8% of GHGs yearly.

This week, 25x’25, a coalition of farm leaders, conservationists, and industry, released a report that should help put this debate to rest. The study was conducted by the University of Tennessee’s Bio-Based Energy Analysis Group, which is composed of a varied group of researchers– agricultural economists, engineers, agronomists, and environmental scientists. They found that a cap and trade system with a “meaningful but moderate” carbon price and opportunities for agricultural offsets would net positive returns for farmers, even considering rising prices of inputs. This scenario offers significant carbon benefits and does not incentivize the conversion of agricultural land to forest. They compared several models, including one with EPA regulation instead of cap and trade. Farmers fared very poorly in this scenario, experiencing net losses and losing sixty million acres of cropland to forest.

I also saw Senator Bernie Sanders speak in person twice, and he gave a very poignant speech. He is one of the rare politicians who can reconcile agriculture with the environment in his state, supporting both. So I’ll leave you with my favorite quote from the day, explaining why he thinks it’s necessary to take strong and swift action against climate change. “Let me remind people who might say that the vision I am outlining is too radical, I want you to think about December 8th, 1941, the day after Pearl Harbor, when President Roosevelt declared war against Japan. Within a year and a half . . . the United States had transformed its economy . . . [into wartime production]. We did that in a year and a half in the early 1940’s. So please do not tell me that in the year 2009 with all of the advanced technology out there that this country cannot lead the world in transforming our energy system . . ..”

'Dustology'?

Dust comes from two sources—indoors and outdoors. Indoor dust is composed of residue from carpet fibers, skin cells, bug parts, and other decomposing household materials, while outdoor dust is made up of soil particles. ’Dustologists’ have found that dust is actually very complicated– both types can be mixed with a variety of organic and inorganic compounds, some of which may be harmful. For example, DDT, a chemical long banned in the U.S., is still found in dust samples today, as are toxic flame-retardants from industrially-manufactured furniture. However, most dust in our homes– upwards of two-thirds– is of the outdoor variety. Outdoor dust is either tracked in on shoes or blown in through doors and windows. Humans then assimilate dust through respiration and ingestion. So, how do you reduce your dust exposure? The answer is simple—vacuum, often, with a vacuum that has a HEPA filter. Oh, and tell your kids not to lick things.

To read more or listen to the story, visit NPR’s website: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120252957.

- R. Poor, Science Policy Intern

Soil on Mars

NASA held a teleconference today about their efforts to free the trapped Spirit rover on Mars. The rover was driving backwards when its wheels broke through a thin, crusty soil and became stuck in the slick sand layer underneath. Initial attempts to escape caused the rover to sink further into the sand pit. While trapped, Spirit has collected data from the site, known as Troy, and scientists have found the highest sulfur content measured on Mars in the sands. Scientists believe that the sands, which are distinctly layered and tinted, may have been produced in hot springs or a similarly steamy environment. Such an environment resembles the conditions that many scientists believe spawned life on Earth.

To read more, see “NASA to Being Attempts to Free Sand-Trapped Mars Rover”.

Obama Appoints Head of USAID

The White House announced today that they have nominated Dr. Rajiv Shah to head the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Shah has been the Under-Secretary for the Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission area at USDA for the past ten months. Before his appointment as Under Secretary, Shah spent seven years as the Director of Agricultural Development for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and he campaigned with both President Obama and former Vice President Al Gore. Shah has a medical degree and an MS in health economics.

USAID is at the center of the State Department’s new policy favoring international development and diplomacy, but the agency has suffered severe funding cuts in the last twenty years. Apparently, the appointment of the position was delayed due to an intense vetting process.

The Science Policy Office has worked extensively with the National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and REE under Shah. We look forward to continuing this relationship as we work with USAID. We appreciate his support and wish him the best in his new position.

For more information, see articles in the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Senator Blanche Lincoln and cap and trade legislation

Blanche Lincoln grew up on a farm in Helena, Arkansas where her family raised rice, wheat, soybeans and cotton. After graduating from Randolph-Macon College, she worked as a congressional staffer for the 1st district in Arkansas and then as a lobbyist for William Broadhurst. In 1992, Blanche ran against her former boss, Bill Alexander, and was elected to the House of Representatives as the Congresswoman for Arkansas’ 1st district.

In 1998, at age 38 Lincoln became the youngest woman Senator ever elected to the U.S. Senate. As Arkansas’ junior Senator, Lincoln has emphasized the importance of farming, the rural economy, and communities. She is supportive of farming subsidies; in 2007, she orchestrated the defeat of an amendment to the Farm Bill that would have capped federal farm supports at $250,000 annually, arguing that the amendment was unfair to the rice and cotton farmers in her state.

In September, Lincoln was named Chairwoman for the Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee. Lincoln’s focus will be on reauthorizing the childhood nutrition act, implementing the 2008 Farm Bill, and regulating commodities. In contrast to other Democrats, she has been openly critical of the House climate change bill. Lincoln claims that the legislation will, as written, cause financial difficulties for many farmers and ranchers. She finds fault with the current legislation, saying that it does not fulfill its own objectives of reducing greenhouse gases, creating jobs, decreasing dependence on foreign oil, and strengthening the U.S. economy.

“I am opposed to the House passed cap-and-trade legislation for various reasons…In my opinion it picks winners and losers, and that’s not our job up here.” Lincoln stated in an interview.

What are your thoughts about Senator Lincoln’s views on cap and trade legislation? How will her leadership help or hinder the progress we make as a scientific community?

President Obama stated yesterday at the United Nations that “the time we have to reverse this tide is running out.” Check out what U.S. Senators are saying about the expected timing for climate change legislation in the clips from E&E News located in the Hill Heat article, “Senate Watch, Moving Slowly: Barrasso, Baucus, Boxer, Durbin, Kerry, McCain, Reid”.

If you could present a cap and trade idea before congress, what would it be? Would you argue for or against the House bill?

Resources
"Sen. Blanche Lincoln."Almanac of American Politics (2009): n. pag. Web. 24 Sep 2009.

"Blanche Lincoln." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. 22 Sep 2009, 20:38 UTC. 22 Sep 2009

Ellyn Ferguson, . "Senate Agriculture Chairwoman: House Climate Bill Would Hurt Farmers." Congressional Quarterly 15 Sep. 2009: n. pag. Web. 24 Sep 2009.

ASA, CSSA, and SSSA Grand Challenges

American Society of Agronomy Grand Challenges
approximate completion date: mid Oct.
Work group Members

• Mark Alley
  
• Shabtai Bittman
• Kenneth G. Cassman
• Achim Dobermann
• Tom Doerge
• Dean Fairchild
• Paul Fixen
• Cynthia Grant
• Quirine M. Ketterings
• Raj Khosla
• Rob Mitchell
• John Spargo

Crop Science Society of America Grand Challenges*
approximate completion date: Sept. 25
Committee Members

• Micheal Grusak
• Stephen Baenziger
• Ken Boote
• Sarah Lingle
• Thomas Carter
• Shawn Kaeppler
• Roger Boerma
• Georgia Eizenga
• Paul Carter
• Major Goodman
• Emerson Nafziger
• Kimberly Kidwell
• Mike Edgerton
• Advisor: Ken Quesenberry
• Advisor: Joe Lauer
  

*Martha Willcox, Ph.D. served as the Science Policy Office's scientific expert for the process.

Soil Science Society of America Grand Challenges
Grand Challenges Email

Administrative Atmosphere Changing for Climate Legislation

President-elect Obama and his top energy advisors have indicated that global climate change is second only to the economic crisis on the official environment and energy agenda, legitimizing it as a national concern and priority for action. Expressing and rallying support for his focus on climate change, Obama said “I support implementation of an economy-wide cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80% below 1990 levels by 2050” and, “when I am president… any nation that’s willing to join the cause of combating climate change will have an ally in the United States of America.”

While the President’s agenda will likely drive new climate change legislation, the process is not exactly simple. During the tenures of the 108th, 109th, and 110th Congresses, climate change legislation was drafted, introduced, amended, re-introduced, considered and tabled several times. The two most mature pieces of legislation from the last Congress (110th) provide a platform for discussion:
- The (Dingell-Boucher) Committee on Energy and Commerce Climate Change Legislation Discussion Draft (House) (not yet introduced)
- S.3036 Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008 (Senate) (passed in Committee with an amendment by Barbara Boxer (D-CA), the Chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works)

The bills are relatively similar, lengthy and complicated pieces of legislation. Both establish a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the market. Although agriculture does contribute to GHG emissions, some researchers claim that only a small portion (about 10%) of the total GHG offset potential from agriculture is related to emissions reduction, and about 90% can be achieved from soil carbon sequestration. In the drafted legislation, agriculture as an industry is not regulated according to GHG emissions. Instead, it is treated according to its potential to offset emissions from other “capped” industries (i.e. importers of fossil fuels) which elect to pay for the offsets from sequestration, rather than reduce their emissions below the cap.

Offset Optimism: Soil Carbon Sequestration

The beautiful thing about soil carbon sequestration (as opposed to some other technology-intensive sequestration options) is that much of the technology is relatively simple and inexpensive. It also typically includes additional benefits, such as enhancing soil quality for long-term agronomic productivity and helping to control erosion. Offset allowances via soil carbon sequestration are already available for purchase from private companies such as the Carbon Farmers of America, the Chicago Climate Exchange and the National Carbon Offset Coalition, among others, local, national and international.

Optimism Offset… Concern and Criticism for Offset Allowances

Despite enthusiasm for sequestration opportunities, the concept of offset allowances is criticized for discouraging real action to reduce GHG emissions. Additionally, there is general acknowledgment of the finite capacity of soils to store carbon. Nevertheless, all major climate change discussions have included offset allowances as an important element, including the Kyoto Protocol. President-elect Obama lent his support for domestic offsets by saying "I will also develop domestic incentives that reward forest owners, farmers and ranchers when they plant trees, restore grasslands or undertake farming practices that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, creating new opportunities for rural America to help solve the climate crisis."

A lack of data verifying sequestration of carbon in soil based on management practices enhances the unease and criticism of offsets. For instance, scientists generally agree that the conversion of native grassland vegetation to agriculture has released soil carbon stores across the globe. Linear thinking suggests that the reverse conversion of cropland to grassland would thereby sequester carbon, and indeed some research verifies this. However, other research refutes the generalization, indicating that site characteristics may be more important than land use in determining the carbon sequestration potential of cropland versus grassland. However, in the language of the current climate change legislation drafts, “practices that increase agricultural soil carbon sequestration” and “conversion of cropland to rangeland or grassland” are considered side by side, as though both provide equally viable offsets for GHG emissions. Perhaps more precise language regarding the efficacy and viability of land-use conversion as an offset strategy will support the overall concept of offsets as a part of the strategy to achieve anthropogenic GHG reductions.

Climate and Carbon and Ag… Bridging Science and Policy

The support suggested by President-elect Obama’s statements and the climate change bills awaiting discussion in the upcoming session of Congress might mean the US will soon see rapid progress on climate change legislation, and that the agriculture sector will have a substantial role in making it work. Soil carbon sequestration has been and will continue to be an important theme moving forward with both a domestic energy plan and new climate change legislation. It is incumbent on agronomists and crop and soil scientists to clarify the real capacity of agricultural practices for soil carbon sequestration, to inform legislators and address the concerns about its viability as an offset for GHG emissions. By forming relationships with their congressional representatives, ASA-CSSA-SSSA members working in this area improve the likelihood that lawmakers receive up-to-date, relevant information when the issues are considered at the federal level. The Science Policy Office exists to help members establish and maintain such relationships. Contact us to learn more about your role as a scientist in the political process.

Integrated Nitrogen Committee Workshop

Last week, the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Integrated Nitrogen Committee (INC) held a workshop to review the committee white paper, “Selected Recommendations and Findings from the Integrated Nitrogen Committee”, on integrated nitrogen management. Laura Murphy, the Science Policy Intern, attended the preliminary and breakout group reporting sessions of the workshop.

The breakout group focus areas for this workshop included:
1: NOx Emissions from Combustion
2: Managing Ammonia Emissions
3: Urban and Aquatic Nr Discharge
4: Agricultural Aquatic Discharge
(Co-chaired by ASA-CSSA-SSSA member Dr. Ken Cassman)
5: Impacts of Land Use on Accumulation & Effects of Reactive Nitrogen in the Environment
6: Integrated Reactive Nitrogen Policies
7: Agroecosystems, Food Security, and Bioproducts
8: Energy and the Cascading Costs of Reactive Nitrogen


Overall the groups collectively submitted that more support is needed in several areas in terms of both funding and policy to realize national integrated nitrogen management. The following statements represent the overarching needs:

Long-term research is essential.
In the US, funding for monitoring has not been prioritized; although it is critical for natural resource science, exposing trends and aiding evaluation of new policies or practices. National, integrated monitoring networks will be critical to advancing the understanding and management of N, as well as other pollutants. Data must be accessible to researchers to answer scientific problems, and the scientific analysis must be timely and available for decision-makers to use in setting policies and priorities.

It is necessary to educate both policy-makers and the public about N in the environment.
Education should include timely scientific information about health concerns and discuss the true costs of nutrient management practices (i.e. full life-cycle assessments, benefit of ecosystem services).

Managers need regionally adaptable decision-making frameworks.
These decision-making frameworks must be informed by science from field to farm to regional and national scales. No one rule will apply to all landscapes, and a regional perspective is very important to informing on-farm practices. Multi-scale thinking will link field to farm to watershed and airshed scales, and ultimately identify the scale of the “problemshed”.

Management and policy must take a ‘systems-based approach’.
A systems approach takes into account landscapes, ecosystems, all forms of N and other potential pollutants. In contrast, a regulatory approach would establish limits on one aspect of N, potentially resulting in a trade-off with another pollutant or degradation of another area.

Policies must encourage education, training and persuasion.
Even—perhaps especially—in the case of agriculture, where pollutants have historically been less regulated than the industrial or municipal sectors, an educational/training approach is warranted.

Some breakout groups also identified data gaps, which should be prioritized to support the research which will ultimately inform and support the policy on integrated nitrogen management. These data gaps included:
• N use (especially at farm scale)
• Fluxes and loads
• N losses from farms
• Nutrient balances
• Links between N and C, water, climate change, etc.
• N storage in soil
• N transformations, transport, etc. in ‘no-till’ systems, medium term
• Dry deposition of N across landscapes at various scales
• High-resolution short-range models
• National monitoring networks (with consistent funding/support)
• Improved understanding and monitoring of feedback loops – both on the landscape and in the socio-political-production realm

For more information about the INC, visit HERE

Comment by October 29th: What role can higher education play in agricultural development in Africa?

What role can higher education play in agricultural development in Africa?

The Africa-US Higher Education Initiative is currently hosting a web-based consultation, open to anyone, about what role higher education can play in agricultural development in Africa.

The dialogue began on Oct 20th and will close on Oct. 29th.

In mid-November, there will be a call for proposals for planning grants. Watch for details in the October 29th Science Policy Report.

See the Africa-US Higher Education Initiative website: http://www.africa-initiative.org/

Discuss the role of higher education in agricultural development here: http://www.africa-initiative.org/forum12/18.html

Comments on Farm Bill REAP due Friday, October 24

The Farm Bill Rural Energy for America Program (REAP) is currently open for comments. This program has been discussed at recent meetings of the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture (NCSA) Committee on Renewable Energy.Scientists working in areas related to bioenergy may wish to add to the draft comments (access them by clicking here) by the Environmental Law and Policy Center (ELPC), or submit their own.

If you would like to submit comments on the ELPC draft, please send them to Laura Murphy at lmurphy@agronomy.org and I will compile comments from ASA-CSSA-SSSA scientists and submit them jointly to the ELPC.

If you would like to submit independent comments, I will connect you with John Moore at ELPC, who will gladly help you coordinate their filing with USDA.

The following background is from ELPC: USDA's public comment period for REAP and the other new programs in the Farm Bill Energy Title ended on September 19. However, we know that USDA is still 6-12 weeks away from issuing this year's notice of funds availability (NOFA) for REAP. Since for the first time it includes Energy Audits/Technical Assistance, we think it's especially important to give USDA guidance on how to best implement the program. Our draft comments therefore focus on the energy audit program, together with comments on improving the existing REAP grant and loan guarantee program. The primary reason why we are submitting these comments (which are similar in the main to ELPC's first comments) is that comparatively few entities submitted comments on REAP on September 19. So we think it's especially important for more ag, rural development, energy and other organizations to weigh in now so that USDA gets the rules right - which is much better than trying to undo poorly-designed rules.

Exploring Buzzwords: Agroecology

Currently, the agriculture science policy community stands at the brink of being swarmed by a new buzzword: “Agroecology”. Buzzwords have a tendency to sound important, but are often misunderstood. (In fact, ‘buzzword’ is itself one, so for clarity I will work with the definition proposed by the Merriam-Webster Online dictionary: an important-sounding usually technical word or phrase often of little meaning used chiefly to impress laymen.) It is difficult to implement good policy based on a popular concept that is not well-developed. It is important to have a clear idea of what the concept represents in the physical world, and what metrics can be used to determine whether a situation accurately reflects the concept, before one can measure progress and/or success.

So, what is agroecology? And how can we determine whether it is a valuable concept for agriculture science policy? A number of definitions are available, including the classic and the contemporary:

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (entered 1967):
Agroecology is an ecological approach to agriculture that views agricultural areas as ecosystems and is concerned with the ecological impact of agricultural practices

Webster’s Online Dictionary (entered 2003-2008):
Agroecology is the science of applying ecological concepts and principles to the design, development, and management of sustainable agricultural systems

…and the complicated:

"Loosely defined, agroecology often incorporates ideas about a more environmentally and socially sensitive approach to agriculture, one that focuses not only on production, but also on the ecological sustainability of the productive system. [This definition] implies a number of features about society and production that go well beyond the limits of the agricultural field.
"At its most narrow, agroecology refers to the study of purely ecological phenomena within the crop field, such as predator/prey relations, or crop/weed competition."
[Susanna B. Hecht, "The Evolution of Agroecological Thought," in Agroecology: The Scientific Basis of Alternative Agriculture, ed. by Miguel Altieri (Boulder CO: Westview Press, 1987)


The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (UNCSD) has not yet developed a working definition of the term ‘agroecology’. However, the major groups* --Science and Technology, Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), and Farmers--have all made reference to agroecology in their comments to the Commission during sessions of multi-stakeholder dialogue on sustainable agriculture.
*The UNCSD major groups represent various stakeholders in civil society. Follow the link for more information about the major groups and their role in informing the UNCSD.

The NGO Major Group voices: a need for further support for ‘agroecological approaches or ‘investments in agroecological participatory methods’. The Farmers Major Group offered a few examples of agricultural practices that might be included in agroecology. And the Science & Technology community has weighed in with the following statement: “Advanced knowledge in agroecology offers the potential to increase productivity while providing critical ecosystem services, including improved soil and water quality and carbon sequestration.”

Other documents drafted by NGOs, e.g., the Kenya Food Security Steering Group, use the term ‘agro-ecology’ to refer to the characteristics of a given landscape, including agricultural practices and biodiversity, as well as climate and common natural disaster conditions. This treatment of the word is slightly different from the concept of agroecology as a discipline of study.

The latter use of the term follows on an early model from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). As early as 1978, the FAO reported: The Agro-Ecological Zones concept represents unique combinations of agroclimatic zones and soil units that would likely be homogeneous with regard to their capacity to support (rainfed) production of a wide range of food and cash crops.

More recently (2007), the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Sustainable Agriculture and Rural Development (SARD) branch drafted a brief outlining the emerging science of agro-ecology. They use Gliessman’s definition:

Agro-ecology is the application of ecological concepts and principles to the design and management of sustainable agro-ecosystems.

(From: Gliessman, S. Agroecology: the ecology of sustainable food systems. Boca Raton, Florida, USA, CRC Press. 2007)

The briefing also provides a concise history of the development of the concept:

In the past, agriculture was mainly studied through an agronomic approach, rather than an ecological or social one. In the 1960s and 1970s, ecological analysis of agriculture gained momentum, and in the 1980s the traditional agricultural systems of developing countries started to be recognized as important natural resource management systems. By the 1990s, agro-ecology had emerged as a scientific discipline with a conceptual framework and defined methodology for the holistic study of agro-ecosystems, including human and environmental elements, and the provision of principles for the design and management of sustainable agriculture and food systems.

And it is true; there are now a number of resources available for working groups in agroecology to reference for assistance in defining their approach to the concept. But because agroecology remains a flexible term with various approaches and definitions, it is important for a group working with the concept of agroecology to establish a working definition suitable to the purposes of the group, to avoid confusion. Likewise, it is important for a group to have clearly determined metrics, whether trying to determine if a research program fits within the study of agroecology, or trying to determine if the study of agroecology itself is succeeding at its own purported goals. Successful communication will rely on mutual understanding of the group terminology.

For those of you interested in further discussion of concepts related to sustainable agriculture and how to define and measure it, the Tri-societies’ Committee on Organic and Sustainable Agriculture (COSA) will be meeting at the Annual International meetings in Houston to discuss: Promoting Sustainability through use of Metrics, Policy and Education.


COSA roundtable: “Promoting Sustainability through use of Metrics, Policy and Education”
Date: Monday, October 6th
Time: 7:00 – 9:00 pm
Place: Lanier Grand Ballroom E, Hilton Americas Houston Hotel


Some links to agroecology resources:

Agroecology Research Group at UCSC: http://www.agroecology.org/
The Center for Agroecology & Sustainable Food Systems at UCSC: http://casfs.ucsc.edu/
Agroecology in Action at UCB: http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~agroeco3/
The Harry R. Hughes Center for Agro-Ecology, Inc. at UM: http://agroecol.umd.edu/

Investing in Research, Education, and Extension—a Solution to Solve the ‘Global Food Crisis

Accounts from around the world describe a “global food crisis”—a series of events resulting in an inflation of price indices for commodities such as rice, maize, and wheat upwards of 40% per year by highlighting the gravity of the decisions it forces global citizens to make in order to survive. In more than 30 countries across the globe, the weight of food decisions is so pressing that it has led to food riots. African nations have endured the highest number of conflicts.

According to a recent report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), the crisis is unraveling of more than 30 years of international development, resulting in increased calls for help for the UN World Food Program. While experts point fingers and hypothesize about the cause of the crisis, it is apparent that there is no one single cause or solution. However, one proposal stands out to ASA–CSSA–SSSA, the proposal for increased investment in research, development and technology transfer.

"The present situation is a result of the international community's neglect of agriculture in developing countries for a long time," notes Dr Jacques Diouf, Director-General of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). "The share of agriculture in official development assistance has declined from 17% in 1980 to only 3% in 2006. Investment in agricultural research in developing countries is less than 0.6% of their Gross Domestic Product compared to more than 5% in the OECD countries."

"Increasing agricultural production in developing countries will only be achievable by additional public and private investment. FAO estimates incremental public investment needs at about US$24 billion every year—this includes increased resources for water management, rural roads, storage facilities, as well as research and extension,” Diouf said when he addressed a conference at the European Parliament in Brussels in July of this year.

The International Food Policy Institute concedes that in China spending on agricultural research, education, and rural roads was more effective in promoting agricultural growth and poverty reduction, yielding 10 times greater returns than input subsidies. Is China a good case study?

Is the Chinese Model Worth Extrapolating?

In China, the researchers for the World Bank found that between 1981 and 2004 agricultural growth relieved the nation’s rate of poverty four times more than did growth in the manufacturing or service sectors.

Is part of the success and impact of China’s growing agricultural sector related to its continued investments for institutes that are developing crop and livestock varieties to improve agricultural productivity? Evidenced by recent activity, this seems to be what China believes. On 2 July 2008, the State Council, China’s Cabinet, approved a National Program for Long- and Medium- Term Grain Security, which ensures that grain security will be China's long-term basic national policy. The DuPont business, Pioneer Hi-Bred will be a significant partner for China in these efforts and has offered resources to help improve the productivity of Chinese farmers.

"We need to increase the productivity of each acre of land for China to achieve food security—and biotechnology will be a key technology in doing so," claims William S. Niebur, Vice President of DuPont Crop Genetics Research and Development. "China has experienced productivity gains in rice and corn production through hybridization, but growth has reached a plateau. New technologies are needed to achieve the step-change increase in corn and rice production that is required to meet China's growing demand for grain."

It will be interesting to see what role the crop sciences play in the execution of China’s national grain security program, both publically and through private-R & D effforts.

Will plant breeding, crop physiology, and cropping systems also be part of the research and development efforts?

Tell Us What You Think!

Does the Chinese model reinvent the wheel, or serve as a renewed method for providing aid? Does R&D help to alleviate poverty and mitigate food shortages? If so, how? What are your experiences from the field?

Climate Debate--Terrestrial Systems

Summary of Climate Change Legislation

A cap and trade system is a system where economic sectors, broadly defined as electrical generation, industrial, and transportation, will be required to register with a Federal Greenhouse Gas Registry managed by a non-government entity (in S. 2191 the Climate Change Credit Corporation).

The covered facilities under the regulated sectors of the economy are allocated emissions allowances each year (2012-2050) that equal 100% of the total emissions for the broadly defined sectors in a given year. The goal is to limit the emission of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs), effectively reducing emissions over the bill’s lifetime. The sum value of allocated emissions allowances equals the cap; each emissions allowance allows a covered facility the authorization to emit 1 carbon dioxide equivalent of greenhouse gas as determined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Emissions allowances are considered to be “under the cap”. The environmental lobby will work towards reducing the cap, i.e. less emissions; whereas other lobbies work for a higher- or no- cap.

The offset allowances outside the cap are by their nature more stringent, but no farmer is required to participate in the offset program. The offset allowance is a regulated allowance monitored by the EPA. These allowances require a unit of reduction in the quantity of emissions or an increase in sequestration equal to 1 carbon dioxide equivalent at an entity that is not a covered facility. The reduction in emissions at the said facility, or increase in sequestration, is eligible to be used as an additional means of compliance for the offset certification submission requirements established under the emissions allowances section of the bill. These offset allowances are beyond the cap and could, if they are not true forms of sequestration (i.e. where sequestration is the capture, permanent separation, isolation, or removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere, as determined by the EPA Administrator), weaken the bill. As a result there is pressure on the land-based sequestration lobby to develop a very scrupulous set of measuring, monitoring and verification criteria to ensure a high level of rigor.

What is happening in Congress and the Administration...

The Congressional leadership has stated that Climate Change is a priority for the 110th Congress. However, if movement on the bill does not occur in June (and this is questionable), it is likely that next year’s bills (introduced in the new Congress) will have a new approach. New Climate Change bills introduced in the 111th Congress will be shaped in the presence of several new circumstances. Next year, Senator John Warner (R-VA) will no longer be in office, meaning that a new Republican must step forward to co-sponsor. It is unclear who would be willing to do so. Additionally, the bill will likely be assigned to the Committee on Environment and Public Works (who authorizes language for the EPA), and needs to be passed by that committee before it goes to the Senate floor. That means that it will have to have bipartisan support from that committee. Finally, the new President will have to sign that bill into law. It is undetermined who will win the presidency and if that individual will be supportive of climate change legislation.
In short, there are many factors weighing into the climate debate on the domestic front. It will be interesting to see how it all pans out.

We are interested to hear from you! What is the role of our Societies in this debate? Please let us know what you think!

More links about Climate:

President Bush

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/climatechange.html

Congress-House

House Committee on Science and Technology

http://science.house.gov/Press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1275

House Committee on Energy and Commerce

http://energycommerce.house.gov/Climate_Change/index.shtml

Congress-Senate

Foriegn Relations

http://www.senate.gov/~foreign/hearings/2008/hrg080124p.html

Environment and Public Works

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Home.Home

Advancing the Second Decade of Biotechnology Discussion

Biotechnology has become an emotional topic. Rarely can you have a discussion without being accused of supporting one extreme or the other. If you voice concerns regarding environmental impact of biotechnology you are labeled as being against biotechnology, while at the same time, if you acknowledge anything positive to come from biotechnology you are aligned with industry. I think biotechnology is more complex than either extreme; therefore how can we create a forum where we can discuss the gray area? Has the topic gotten so emotional that we can’t have a scientific discussion? How do you propose we move forward with the biotechnology debate so individuals can discuss their views openly without getting placed on a “side”?

-Science Policy Intern

Please Help Support Senate Resolution 440

Recognizing soil as an essential natural resource and soils professionals as playing a critical role managing our nation’s soil resources.

Whereas soil, plant, animal, and human health are intricately linked and the sustainable use of soil affects climate, water and air quality, human health, biodiversity, food safety, and agricultural production;

Whereas soil is a dynamic system which performs many functions and services vital to human activities and ecosystems;

Whereas, despite soil’s importance to human health, the environment, nutrition, and food, feed, fiber and fuel production, there is little public awareness of the importance of soil protection;

Whereas the degradation of soil can be rapid, while the formation and regeneration processes can be very slow;

Whereas protection of United States soil based on the principles of preservation and enhancement of soil functions, prevention of soil degradation, mitigation of detrimental use, and restoration of degraded soils is essential to the long-term prosperity of the United States;

Whereas United States legislation in the areas of organic, industrial, chemical, biological, and medical waste pollution prevention and control should consider soil protection provisions;

Whereas United States legislation on climate change, water quality, agriculture, and rural development should offer a coherent and effective legislative framework for common principles and objectives that are aimed at protection and sustainable use of soils in the United States;

Whereas soil contamination coupled with poor or inappropriate soil management practices continues to leave contaminated sites in the United States;

Whereas soil can be managed in a sustainable manner, which preserves its capacity to deliver ecological, economic, and social benefits, while maintaining its value for future generations: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the Senate--
(1) recognizes it as necessary to improve knowledge, exchange information, and develop and implement best practices for soil management, soil restoration, carbon sequestration, and long-term use of the nation’s soil resources;

(2) recognizes the important role of soil scientists and soils professionals, who are well-equipped with the information and experience needed to address the issues of today and those of tomorrow in managing the nation’s soil resources;

(3) commends soil scientists and professionals for their efforts to promote education, outreach, and awareness necessary for generating more public interest in and appreciation for soils;

(4) acknowledges the promise of soil scientists and professionals to continue to enrich the lives of all Americans by improving stewardship of the soil, combating soil degradation and ensuring the future protection and sustainable use of our air, soil, and water resources.

Quick Question and Answer on the UN-CSD

Q. What is the United Nation’s Commission on Sustainable Development (UN-CSD)?

A. “The United Nations’ Commission on Sustainable Development (UN-CSD) was created December, 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of the 1992 United Nations’ Conference on Environment and Development (also called the UNCED or Earth Summit) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. At the UNCED, world leaders signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity, endorsed the Rio Declaration and the Forest Principles and adopted Agenda-21, a 300-page plan for achieving sustainable development in the 21st century (UNCED documents). The UN-CSD's role has been to ensure effective follow-up of the Earth Summit and to monitor and report on implementation of the Earth Summit agreements at the local, national, regional and international levels.”

(additional information)

Q. How Does a CSD Work?

A. Each CSD is divided into issue areas known as thematic clusters. The thematic clusters change every two years. In 2008/2009, CSD-16 will focus on, Agriculture, Rural development, Land, Drought, Desertification, and Africa. The first year is referred to as a review year, during which stakeholders present key issues relevant to their countries/regions to the larger CSD body. The year ends with a Review Session held in New York, this year it will take place between May 5th-16th. At the Session, world leaders and government representatives listen to stakeholder presentations and discuss strategies to mitigate local and regional issues. The second year, in this case 2009, is dedicated to policy development relating to the thematic cluster.

Q. How will I, as a member, benefit from ASA-CSSA-SSSA contribution to the UN CSD?

A. The UN CSD-16 is currently in a policy review year. As part of this review, the U.S. is collating a National Report profiling domestic and international development best practices, case studies, and effective partnerships. Members of ASA-CSA-SSSA can submit case studies or best practices through ASA-CSSA-SSSA to the State Department to be profiled in the U.S. National Report or can register sustainability partnerships directly with the UN.

ASA-CSSA-SSSA hopes to participate in the Regional Implementation Meeting in Geneva in Geneva in January and to host learning sessions at the CSD, and participate in the CSD in May, 2008 at the UN in New York. With broad participation in the policy review year in 2008, ASA-CSSA-SSSA can influence the forthcoming policy debate at the UN CSD in 2009.

Views From the Field

There are several strategies employed for nutrient management: buffer strips, timing of fertilizer applications, adoption of nitrogen stabilizers, and adoption of new technologies to name a few. Despite significant information, nutrient management practices are not universally adopted.

As corn acreage is increased for biofuel production, how should we proceed?
What are your thoughts on encouraging adoption of BMPs?
Which BMPs give more bang for their buck?
What is the contribution from urban landuses to nutrient pollution?
What BMPs are useful to mitigate urban pollution?
Should we outreach to urban lawn care specialists?

Links

SSSA Nutrient Management Position Statement

A Soil Science Society Of America (SSSA) Statement

Managing Agricultural Landscapes for Environmental Quality

A Soil and Water Conservation Society Workshop

Agriculture Changing Chemistry of Mississippi River

Press Release from the National Science Foundation

NPS Nutrient Management

We hope you can provide us with insight—your experience is invaluable to us. We need your input on the role you think that our sciences can play in achieving both yield and national NPS pollution abatement needs.

Some Food for Thought:

1. Are there programs, specific areas of research, methods of working with producers, or tranportation and other incentives that can be used to effectively reduce NPS pollution?
2. Who are the stakeholders involed in NPS pollution mitigation?
3. Are there success stories we can learn from?

Please comment or send information to cgala@agronomy.org.

We will post a more indepth analysis of NPS pollution abatement options in the coming weeks as we gather information and develop a better understanding of the topic.

Discussion Draft of National Soil Resolution

*Please note, this text has not yet been adopted and introduced by the Senate.

It is a draft for discussion.

110th CONGRESS
1st SESSION
S. RES. #
U.S. Soil Policy:
Sustaining the National Soil Resource
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

________________________ submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to:

Soil is a natural resource essential for life on earth. Soil links plants, animals, water, and air, affecting the weather, natural resources, and human health. The soil provides minerals for production; toxicity remediation potential; water purification; a growing medium for food, fiber, feed and fuel production; and ecosystems that support fish and wildlife. Soil is now used as the basis of raw inputs for industrial processes, and as a source of antibiotics.

Contemporary pressures on the soil resource elicit the need to increase the fundamental knowledge of soils and develop practical management technologies for sustainable use of this resource. Only those educated in soil science can provide such expertise. Well-trained soil professionals have experience in toxicology; nutrient management; chemical, biological and physical sciences; and natural resource and agricultural land management. Soil professionals are equipped with the information and experience needed to address the issues of today and those of tomorrow. It is now the time to invest in our natural capital, soil.

Whereas:

(1) Soil, plant, animal and human health are intricately linked. Soil degradation or improvement impacts climate, water and air quality, human health, biodiversity, food safety, and agricultural production;

(2) Soil is an essential, non-renewable resource, in that the degradation rates can be rapid and the formation and regeneration processes very slow;

(3) Soil is a dynamic system which performs many functions and services vital to human activities and ecosystems;

(4) Soil functions include biomass production; storage, filtration, and transformation of nutrients; weathering/formation of minerals (raw material); breeding ground for organisms used in medicine and bioremediation techniques; storage of carbon; and storage of the geologic and archeological heritage of the United States (U.S.);

(5) The soils in the U.S. are vulnerable to several soil degradation processes including erosion, nutrient depletion, organic matter decline, contamination, salinization, compaction, loss of soil biodiversity, urban sealing, landslides and flooding;

(6) Despite soil’s importance to human health, the environment, nutrition, and food, feed, fiber and fuel production, there is little public awareness of the importance of soil protection;

(7) Protection of U.S. soil, based on the principles of preservation of soil functions, prevention of soil degradation, mitigation of detrimental use, restoration of degraded soils and integration of these preservation principles into other policies is essential to the long-term prosperity of the United States;

(8) Spatial variability is a natural characteristic of soil; enormous differences exist in soil structural, chemical, and biological properties over the U.S. landscape;

(9) Soil diversity can be taken into account when areas of high risk are selected and appropriate measures implemented to ensure protection of the soil;

(10) Soils vary in susceptibility to degradation processes, and the risk of soil degradation can be identified;

(11) U.S. legislation in the areas of organic, industrial, chemical, biological, and medical waste pollution prevention and control should include provisions on soil protection;

(12) U.S. legislation on climate change, water quality, agricultural and rural development needs to provide a coherent and effective legislative framework for common principles and objectives that are aimed at protection and sustainable use of soil in the U.S.;

(13) Industrialization coupled with poor or inappropriate soil management practices continues to leave contaminated sites in the U.S. A common strategy to manage historic contamination of soil can prevent and control the harmful effects that soil contamination will have on human health and the environment;

(14) Soil can be used in a sustainable manner, which preserves its capacity to deliver ecological, economic, and social services, while maintaining its functions so that future generations can meet their needs.

Now therefore, be it resolved, that the U.S. Senate—

(1) recognizes it as necessary to introduce measures to improve knowledge, exchange information, and develop and implement best practices for soil management, carbon sequestration, and long-term use of the nation’s soil resource;

(2) recognizes the important role of soil and the role of the Soil Science Society of American and Certified Professional Soil Scientists in managing the national soil resource;

(3) commends the members of the Soil Science Society of America for educating historic and emerging soil and environmental professionals;

(4) commends the Soil Science Society of America for continuing the legacy of education, outreach and awareness necessary for generating more public interest in and appreciation for soils for the future;

(5) acknowledges the promise of the Soil Science Society of America to continue to enrich the lives of all Americans, by improving stewardship of the soil, combating soil degradation and ensuring the future protection and sustainable use of our air, land and water resources.

Farming Carbon

The House Committee on Natural Resources recently held a hearing on geological and terrestrial sequestration of carbon dioxide. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce held a similar hearing in March.

Congress' new enthusiasm for technological climate change solutions has spread across both parties and throughout the Washington DC. On Tuesday, May 1 Senator Saxby Chambliss issued a press release on his hopes for voluntary carbon offset trading as a supplement to farm income.

Currently, farmers who wish to profit from the sequestration potential of their soils can sell carbon credits on the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). The exchange offers binding contracts to companies and cooperatives that wish to voluntarily offset their emissions. The CCX does not certify individual farms for sequestration. Instead, it relies on third-parties called aggregators who compile databases of farmers willing to adopt carbon-friendly management practices. From those databases, CCX randomly selects farms for field visits. Once an aggregator’s sample farms are certified its entire portfolio is ready for trading.

After an aggregator trades its portfolio, individual farmers receive their allotted share of the sale less a 10 percent administrative fee for the aggregator. There are only two aggregators presently working to certify conservation-minded farmers - the National Farmers Union’s Carbon Credit Program and the Iowa Farm Bureau Carbon Credit Aggregation Program.

Under both NFU and Iowa Farm Bureau aggregation plans all producers willing to adopt conservation tillage best practices are credited with 0.5 metric ton of carbon for each acre of eligible no-till cropping and 0.75 ton per acre for qualifying grass stands each year of the contract.

To be eligible, lands must be classified as "crop land" by the USDA's Farm Service Agency. Producers must also agree to use conservation tillage as defined in the Natural Resources Conservation Service National Handbook of Conservation Practices.

According to the Iowa Farm Bureau these definitions are: No-till/Strip-till - Managing the amount, orientation, and distribution of crop and other plant residue on the surface year-round while growing crops in narrow slots or tilled or residue-free strips in soil previously untilled by full width inversion implements.

Fallow: In areas where non-tillage fallow is an acceptable practice, no credits shall be issued for the year in which the land is fallowed.

Crop Residue Removal: No credits shall be issued on otherwise eligible cropland (row crops and small grains) during any year in which crop residue is removed by harvest or burning. Crop harvest is permitted for alfalfa and grass hay and through grazing of grass.

As the programs have expanded, aggregators have placed additional regional requirements on sequestering farmers. The Iowa Farm Bureau's requirements are available here.

Since 2003, CCX carbon prices have hovered around $4 per ton of sequestered carbon. Assuming a price of $4 per ton, participating farmers will receive $2.00 per acre for no-till and $3.00 per acre for grass stands, minus the aggregation fee.

At present, aggregators don't attempt to gauge the carbon impact of individual farms nor do they quantify counterbalancing emissions of traces gases. Hopefully, ASA/CSSA/SSSA members can play a constructive role in the CCX, providing the scientific basis on which aggregators will improve their climate accounting.