Jeanne Merrill | California Climate & Agriculture Network

Speaking Truth to Power — CA Organic and Sustainable Agriculture Producers and Advocates in Washington, D.C.

February 8, 2012 by Jeanne Merrill 1 Comment

As a former crop insurance agent and current organic almond producer and processor from a long-time farm family in Fresno, Steve Koretoff spoke truth to power in a recent visit to Washington, D.C. Mr. Koretoff joined six representatives of the California caucus of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) for meetings with congressional staff to discuss farm bill priorities, including defending organic and conservation programs from disproportionate funding cuts.

Later this month, the Senate Agriculture Committee will begin hearings on the 2012 Farm Bill. The hearings come after the failed Super Committee process where, as part of a larger deficit reduction package, congressional leaders attempted to finalize a new farm bill. Also later this month, NSAC will release its coalition farm bill platform, which outlines, in detail, proposed changes to the farm bill to better support family farmers, conservation, local and regional food markets, renewable energy and rural communities.

At the end of January, our delegation of sustainable and organic agriculture advocates and producers met with the offices of several members of California’s congressional delegation – Democrats and Republicans alike. Top on our agenda was urging support for two NSAC-sponsored farm bill “marker bills”: The Local Farms, Food and Jobs Act and the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act.

Together, the two bills would create new local food market opportunities for farmers and consumers, improve organic farm programs, including organic crop insurance, and ease access to land and capital for beginning farmers and ranchers – all key issues for California agriculture.

Steve Koretoff knows first-hand the importance of organic and conservation programs and the need to see changes to better support conservation-oriented farms. Among the issues he raised in our meetings with congressional staff is the 5 percent surcharge holders of organic crop insurance have to pay on top of their premiums, a charge that their conventional neighbors do not pay. Experience has shown that organic farming is not any more risky than its conventional counterpart. Thus, such a surcharge on organic crop insurance creates an unfair disadvantage for organic producers. The Local Farms, Food and Jobs Act would eliminate the organic surcharge and level the playing field for organic producers.

Many of the issues addressed in the two NSAC-sponsored bills were also raised as key farm bill priorities by the California Department of Food and Agriculture.

Get involved by asking your Congressional member to support the Beginning Farmer and Rancher Opportunity Act and Local Farms, Food and Jobs Act. Click here to see a growing list of bill co-sponsors.

Filed Under: Farm Bill 2012, Federal Policy Tagged With: Beginning Farmers, Local Farms, Local Food, Local Jobs, sustainable agriculture

Urge Your State Lawmakers to Support Sustainable Agricultural Solutions to Climate Change

February 6, 2012 by Jeanne Merrill Leave a Comment

The California Legislature will soon take up the issue of how the state should allocate the fees generated through the implementation of the state’s climate change law, AB 32. The legislature and the governor will debate how to expend fees generated from the first auctions held this year of cap and trade allowances (aka permits to emit greenhouse gases). It is estimated that between $400 million and $1 billion will be generated in 2012. All fees must be used to address climate change and meet the objectives of the AB 32.

As we noted a couple of weeks ago, Gov. Jerry Brown included in his recent budget proposal an outline of how cap and trade generated fees may be expended, including investments in sustainable agricultural activities that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is an important step forward.

To raise these issues in the legislature, CalCAN and our allies sponsored SB 237, the Agriculture Climate Benefits Act. Authored by Sen. Lois Wolk (D-Davis), the bill outlined uses of cap and trade fees to support research, technical assistance and financial incentives for agricultural practices and farming systems that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, the bill did not move out of Senate committee in January and was held in suspense, essentially blocking the bill from moving forward this year.

While we had hoped to keep the bill moving, we did find support in the legislature for our proposal, and we will continue to build upon this, with your help, during what will likely be a contentious budget process to determine the fate of cap and trade fees.

You can help make the case for sustainable agricultural solutions to climate change. Write your state senator and representative and ask them to support cap and trade investments in agriculture.

The message is simple: “I’m writing to express my support for a portion of cap and trade fees to go towards research, technical assistance and financial incentives for agricultural practices and farming systems that help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and assist California farmers and ranchers in coping with climate change. Sustainable and organic agriculture offer some of the best solutions to sequester carbon and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while providing environmental and health co-benefits.”

Click here to find your State Senator and Representative’s addresses (search by zip code)

Please let us know you sent a letter. Drop us a line to: info@calclimateag.org.

Find more information on SB 237

Filed Under: AB 32 Implementation, California Policy, Climate & Ag Research, Uncategorized Tagged With: California agriculture, cap-and-trade, climate change, climate legislation, Governor Jerry Brown, SB 237

Governor’s Budget Notes Sustainable Agricultural Solutions to Climate Change

January 11, 2012 by Jeanne Merrill 2 Comments

Beginning this year, as part of the state’s new cap and trade program, the first permits to emit greenhouse gas emissions — otherwise known as “allowances” — will be distributed by the state. Despite recommendations to the California Air Resources Board from an outside advisory group of economists and policy experts that all allowances be sold at auction, most of the allowances will be given free of charge to large GHG emitters.

The state has chosen to auction only a small percentage of allowances. Even this small percentage will generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue in the first years of the program and several billion in later years. Auction revenue will then be available for investment in our communities to meet the challenges of climate change and to achieve the emission reductions goals of the state’s climate change law, AB 32.

How to allocate cap and trade revenue will be debated in the legislature this year. Governor Jerry Brown recently released his budget proposal, which makes clear that revenue from cap and trade must be used for activities that reduce greenhouse emissions and meet the objectives of AB 32. The investments will spur innovation, create jobs, and usher in new opportunities in our communities. These investments come at a crucial time for the state, which faces high unemployment and declining revenues.

In his budget, Governor Brown outlines areas of cap and trade revenue investment, including: “funding to reduce (GHG) emissions associated with water use and supply, land and natural resource conservation and management, and sustainable agriculture.”

This acknowledgement of the value of sustainable agriculture in the climate change debate is a significant step forward.

Since we began our work together nearly three years ago, as a coalition of sustainable agriculture groups, farmers and science advisors, the California Climate and Agriculture Network has advocated for cap and trade revenue investments in agriculture. University researchers, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, USDA and other organizations have all found that sustainable and organic agriculture offer some of the best opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support a sustainable food supply. But in the early days of our work, few in the state had considered the possibilities of how sustainable agriculture might contribute to meeting the objectives of AB 32. CalCAN and our partners have worked together to change that.

Governor Brown’s forward thinking budget proposal on cap and trade revenue, which also includes investments in clean and efficient energy, low‑carbon transportation, and sustainable infrastructure development, puts California on a path toward tackling one of our most significant challenges – climate change – while supporting healthy, vibrant communities for all.

Filed Under: AB 32 Implementation, California Policy Tagged With: AB 32, California agriculture, California Budget, cap-and-trade, Governor Jerry Brown, sustainable agriculture

Governor’s Conference on Climate Risks Signals Need for Deeper Investment

January 2, 2012 by Jeanne Merrill 1 Comment

2011 was a year of extreme weather events in the United States: devastating floods along the Mississippi River, severe drought in the southwest, tornadoes and hurricanes with grave impacts. Making the connections between a rise in extreme weather events and climate change was the focus of Governor Jerry Brown’s December conference on Extreme Climate Risks and California’s Future, held at the Academy of Sciences in San Francisco.

Governor Jerry Brown offers opening remarks at the conference on Extreme Climate Risks and California's Future.

The impetus for the conference was a recent report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), entitled Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. Rising global temperatures, the report argues, will lead to frequent and longer periods of heat waves as well as shifts in precipitation patterns that will lead to more frequent and severe floods and droughts. All of which will stress and strain our economies, leading to greater numbers of “climate refugees”, those displaced by extreme weather events, unless we act now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and put in place measures to adapt to a changing climate.

In our blog we’ve written extensively on the connections between rising temperatures, changing climate patterns, and the impacts on California agriculture. At a time when climate change appears to be on the political backburner, the Governor’s conference put climate change and its real life impacts on people back in the forefront.

The President of the California Farm Bureau Federation, Paul Wenger, addressed the conference attendees about the real concerns that climate change will lead to greater water scarcity in California. Farmers and ranchers will find their ability to produce food and fiber deeply challenged if adequate water supplies to produce their crops and livestock are not available.

The conference was an important step by Governor Brown to demonstrate his commitment to maintaining California’s work to address climate change and move us toward an economy that supports renewable energy and sustainable, healthy communities with good jobs. But the path forward is not always clear.

California will need to invest in making the transition towards a clean, green economy possible. We cannot avoid the worst impacts of climate change without the resources needed in our communities to reduce GHG emissions and adapt to a changing climate. That’s why CalCAN sponsored the Agriculture Climate Benefits Act, Senate Bill 237, and it’s why we will continue to make the case for AB 32 investments in our communities, now and into the future.

Filed Under: California Policy, Climate & Ag Research, Impacts of Climate Change Tagged With: AB 32, agricultural economy, California agriculture, effects of climate change, farmer, SB 237

New USDA Guide Highlights Ecosystem Credit Trading Opportunities and Challenges

December 6, 2011 by Jeanne Merrill Leave a Comment

The USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service recently released a new guide, The Natural Resources Credit Trading Reference. The reference is intended for NRCS staff, policymakers, and others interested in the potential of the marketplace to incentivize conservation and ecosystem services from agriculture.

The guide attempts to tackle the critiques of those who remain skeptical that developing a marketplace of buyers and sellers of ecosystem services will achieve greater environmental stewardship in agriculture, compared to traditional conservation programs and command and control regulation, and outlines how such markets might best be developed.

Whether you’re a convert to the powers of the marketplace to bring about greater stewardship of the environment or wary of Chicago commodity traders getting into the business of trading water, carbon and other environmental goods, as someone concerned with sustainable agriculture, it is useful to understand the pros and cons of environmental credit trading. It’s the current policy idea du jour.

How to achieve greater environmental stewardship?

For decades economists have noted the problems of externalities leading to environmental pollution. Since the benefits of clean air, water, and healthy soil aren’t factored into the price of most goods we buy there is no incentive, economists argue, for the producers of those goods – food, shoes, cars, you name it – to conduct their business in a way that protects the environment and minimizes pollution.

To make sure our rivers don’t burn as they once famously did in Ohio and our air doesn’t choke us, in the 1970s Congress passed landmark legislation – the Clean Water, Safe Drinking Water, and Clean Air Acts – that regulated companies to prevent pollution and safeguard our environment. And those laws are largely credited with significant improvements in our environment – the rivers don’t burn anymore and air quality has improved in many areas. But we still have environmental pollution, and we’re now aware of more complex environmental problems like climate change.

How can we better address the environmental pollution problems in our communities and tackle the complexities of issues like climate change? Some argue that if we can put a price on the benefits of ecosystem services like clean water and air and reduced greenhouse gas emissions then we can use the power of the market to achieve more cost-effective and more nimble solutions to our environmental problems.

Can we put a price on it?

The new USDA guide focuses on environmental credit trading schemes, which are set up as an exchange where a regulated entity, say a power plant, pays the producer of ecosystems services (clean air, water, biodiversity, etc.), such as a farmer, to meet greater environmental stewardship goals and achieve the standard set forth in the regulation.

The authors outline essential features for developing an effective market for ecosystem services. Key features include an agreement on the commodity that is being traded, which in the arena of biological ecosystem services can get complex fast. The authors note , for example, the commodity is in the form of carbon sequestration – the ability to store atmospheric carbon, a greenhouse gas, in soils and woody biomass – what happens if a change in agricultural practice or a forest fire releases the carbon? Who is responsible for the loss of carbon? Is the commodity price discounted to account for the potential of carbon loss? By how much?

Another essential feature of effective markets, they argue, is a price for the commodity must be established and be transparent. But little attention in the guide discusses how to set prices. How much is clean air worth? And if the clean air provided by a farm is intended to offset the air pollution from a factory is that clean air commodity traded at a one-to-one value (i.e. is the clean air benefit from the farm equal to the loss of clean air from the factory?) or not? If not, what’s the difference?

Ecosystem models have become more sophisticated in recent years, and the authors argue the models can be used effectively to estimate the amount of ecosystem benefit from agricultural activities to help inform the development of the market. But a model is only as good as its data. If we depend upon models to estimate the ecosystem service provided by agriculture, we’ll need regional and in some cases local data (soil, climate, etc.) to calibrate them.

Moreover, a model may be able to account for how a change in agricultural practice can achieve a reduction in water contamination, but it may miss how that change affects air quality, wildlife habitat or GHG emissions. And what if one activity is good for improving water quality, but it hurts biodiversity? How do we determine these trade-offs?

Can the marketplace help transform agriculture?

In a November article in Science, a group of researchers recently highlighted the promise and peril of paying for ecosystem services. They argue that few existing ecosystem payment programs pay for ecosystem services that address multiple benefits.

They note: “Incentives for biofuels production that promote conversion of tropical forests to tilled fields may reduce carbon storage and habitat that supports biodiversity. Incentives for habitat protection that create corridors between protected areas may increase disease risks by increasing contact between wild and domesticated animals. Where ecosystem services are jointly produced, paying for only one service can be as damaging as paying for none.”

A central tenant of sustainable agriculture is the importance of taking a whole farm systems approach. That is, to create a more sustainable, biological farming system we must take an integrated approach to managing the soil, pests, habitat, etc. of the farm.

The new USDA reference outlines important considerations to developing effective market-based mechanisms to achieve greater environmental stewardship in agriculture. It is worth a read. But it is this central tenant of sustainable agriculture that they do not adequately address: Can the buyers and sellers of ecosystem services avoid the unintended consequences of rewarding the improvement of one aspect of our environment without degrading others?

Filed Under: Climate & Ag Research, Farmer Resources, Federal Policy Tagged With: agricultural economy, climate change, Ecosystem Services, Environmental Stewardship, farmer, NRCS, on-farm energy, on-farm renewable energy, policy, USDA

Agriculture allowance revenue bill on hold

June 8, 2011 by Jeanne Merrill Leave a Comment

Early in 2011, Senator Lois Wolk introduced Senate Bill 237, the Agriculture Climate Benefits Act. The bill was sponsored by CalCAN. The bill, in its original, stated that a portion of future revenue generated by state through the implementation of the state’s cap and trade program, as part of AB 32, should go towards research, technical assistance and financial incentives for farming practices that provide climate and other environmental co-benefits.

Particularly in light of increasing threats of federal cuts to USDA conservation programs, this effort seems as timely as ever.

The bill passed out of the Senate Environmental Quality Committee, but last week the bill it got held over in the Senate Appropriations Committee and missed a deadline to move out of the Senate, putting SB 237 on hold until 2012.

CalCAN sponsored a similar bill in 2010 (SB 1241). This year we were able to expand the depth and breadth of support for the bill with more mainstream environmental group support — for example, Defenders of Wildlife and the Audubon Society signed on in support. We also experienced increased interest and possible support from some conventional agriculture trade groups, and the bill continues to enjoy solid sustainable agriculture support. However, that was not enough to move the bill out of the Senate as the larger politics of AB 32 were difficult to overcome.

Several environmental justice groups successfully sued the California Air Resources Board for failing to adequately review alternatives to cap and trade, like a carbon tax. They argued that, among other things, allowing power plants in the state to achieve a significant portion of their GHG emission reductions from buying offset credits from projects outside of the state would hurt low income, minority communities that are disproportionately at risk from pollution from local power plants. They also argued that CARB failed to adequately review alternatives to the cap and trade system. A judge agree. And just last month the judge issued a final ruling that ARB had to go back and do a review of alternatives to cap and trade.

This month CARB will likely complete their alternatives review. How that will be received by the judge and the plaintiffs is unknown, but we will keep you posted. Fortunately, the judge’s ruling allows the other initiatives within AB 32 to move forward – e.g. green building and clean car standards, etc. (cap and trade was to achieve 20 percent of the state’s total GHG emission reductions). In addition, the judge just lifted a stay on CARB, allowing it to proceed with finalizing and implementing California’s cap and trade program.

CalCAN will continue to serve as a voice for sustainable and organic agriculture in the implementation of AB 32.

Filed Under: AB 32 Implementation, California Policy Tagged With: AB 32, agriculture climate impacts, allowance revenue, benefits, SB 237

New Secretary of CDFA

January 12, 2011 by Jeanne Merrill 2 Comments

Karen Ross Appointed Secretary of California Department of Food and Agriculture

The California Climate and Agriculture Network congratulates Karen Ross on her appointment by Governor Brown as the next Secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA). Her appointment comes at a critical time in terms of preparing to support California agriculture in addressing a changing climate. At CalCAN, we are looking forward to working with the new Secretary on this issue.

Karen Ross has a long tenure of promoting the economic and environmental sustainability of California agriculture. Ms. Ross served for many years as the President of the California Association of Winegrape Growers and a member of the State Food and Agriculture Board. She currently serves at the Chief of Staff for USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack.

According to Rich Rominger, “Governor Brown selected the best person for California Department of Food and Agriculture. Karen Ross is the leader we need to address the critical issues of agriculture, water, clean energy development and climate change.” Rominger was CDFA Secretary under then-Governor Brown from 1977 to 1982 and Deputy Secretary of USDA from 1993 to 2001.

California agriculture is $35 billion industry, covering a quarter of the state’s land mass and providing nearly half of the country’s fresh fruits, nuts and vegetables. Climate change scenarios suggest that in the coming years the industry will struggle with climate-related impacts such as water scarcity, extreme weather events, more intense and frequent floods and droughts, and rising temperatures. Resources, such as research, technical assistance for growers and financial incentives for on-farm conservation practices, are needed to support California agriculture in coping with a changing climate.

Craig McNamara, owner of Sierra Orchards and member of the State Board of Food and Agriculture, believes that “Karen Ross is the right person at the right time for the job. Karen knows California agriculture and can bring together diverse groups to work towards a sustainable future for California’s farmers and ranchers.

Filed Under: California Policy

Wrap up of Lame Duck Session of Congress – Significant Victories for Sustainable Food & Farming

December 22, 2010 by Jeanne Merrill Leave a Comment

The lame duck session of Congress, which is wrapping up this week, took action on a number of priorities for the sustainable food and agriculture community. Courtesy of the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, here are the highlights:

Child Nutrition: Congress passed the Healthy, Hunger- Free Kids Act also known as the Child Nutrition reauthorization bill. The bill authorizes $4.5 billion over 10 years to increase the nutritional standards for food in schools. The bill also include $40 million in mandatory funding for farm to school initiatives, including programs to source food for school meals from local farmers, school garden programs and hands-on nutrition education programming. For more on the Child Nutrition Act see: http://sustainableagriculture.net/category/farm-to-school/

Food Safety: In the last days of the session, Congress passed the Food Safety Modernization Act with the Tester-Hagan amendment, which provides protections to small farmers from burdensome paperwork while keep food safety standards in place. For more on the details of the bill see: http://sustainableagriculture.net/category/food-safety/

Pigford II Funding: After years of inaction, Congress approved funding of $4.6 billion to settle two class-action discrimination lawsuits against USDA. Pigford v. Glickman would give $1.15 billion to black farmers who were discriminated against by USDA in the 1980s and 1990s. Cobell v. Salazar would give $3.4 billion to Indian tribes whose trust accounts were mismanaged by the Department of the Interior. For more on the settlements see: http://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/house-passes-pigford-funding/

FY 2011 Appropriations: Negotiations on an omnibus funding bill for fiscal year 2011 broke down and Congress instead passed a continuing resolution, which will maintain FY 2010 funding levels until March 4, 2011. In the new year, the House, under Republican leadership, will have to take up the issue of either passing an omnibus spending bill or passing another continuing resolution to keep the federal doors open. For details on what this means for USDA programs, see: http://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/congress-passes-3-month-cr/

Filed Under: Federal Policy, Uncategorized Tagged With: appropriations, child nutrition, Congress, food safety, pigford, sustainable agriculture

California Air Resources Board Approves Cap and Trade Program

December 20, 2010 by Jeanne Merrill Leave a Comment

On Thursday December 16th, with a 9-1 vote, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) approved a cap and trade program aimed at reducing the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Jeanne Merrill, CalCAN’s Policy Director, testified at hearing. Among the issues we commented on was CARB’s recommendations to the legislature on how future funds generated from the program could be spent.

CalCAN, joined by 15 farms and sustainable agriculture organizations, called for CARB to recommend a portion of future funding go towards research, technical assistance and financial incentives for California farmers and ranchers to cope with a changing climate.

Board member Dee Dee D’Adamo and Chairman Mary Nichols championed adding language to CARB’s recommendations to the legislature that includes calling for a portion of revenue going towards agriculture. It is anticipated that in the early years of the program (2012-2015) millions of dollars will be generated through the auctioning of allowances (i.e. permits to emit greenhouse gases), and billions of dollars in the later years of the program.

The room was packed with the hearing beginning at 9:00 am and finishing about 7:00 pm. Governor Schwarzenegger made a surprise appearance urging a yes vote on the cap and trade program.

In another significant development, ARB will create a Community Development Fund and put 10 percent of the allowances in the fund to pay for it. The Fund will support activities to help low income and disadvantaged communities to adapt to climate change (e.g. cooling centers in the valley for seniors, etc.).

Meanwhile there was a call for quickly developing more agriculture offset protocols, including protocols for soil carbon sequestration, nitrogen fertilizer reductions, reductions in methane emissions for rice, etc. CalCAN will monitor this and push for protocols that take a whole farm systems approach to avoid rewarding single practices that may not lead to real GHG emissions reductions.

The cap and trade program will begin in January 2012.

For more on the cap and trade program, see:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htm

Filed Under: AB 32 Implementation, California Policy

Organic Ag Missing from State Research

October 1, 2010 by Jeanne Merrill Leave a Comment

When Organic Agriculture Goes Missing, State Research Misses Climate Solutions

Few would argue in 2010 that organic farming is a fringe sector of our agricultural industry. But at a recent meeting at the California Air Resources Board (CARB), organic agriculture’s insignificance was the reason given for the lack of inclusion of organic farming systems in the state’s effort to understand how farming practices affect nitrous oxide (N2O) emissions.

CARB, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) and the California Energy Commission (CEC) are funding UC Davis and CSU Fresno researchers to establish the current baseline emissions of N2O, a potent greenhouse gas, from California agriculture. Over three years, the researchers will monitor fluxes of N2O emissions from the soils of a variety of cropping systems (e.g. tomatoes, corn silage, cotton, etc).

[Read more...]

Filed Under: Climate & Ag Research Tagged With: CARB, CDFA, farmgate sales, GHG, N20