Blog | California Climate & Agriculture Network

Rangeland Conservation Group Impresses with Leadership & Vision

January 26, 2012 by Renata Brillinger Leave a Comment

After attending the annual summit of the California Rangeland Conservation Coalition (CRCC) in Davis last week, I’m more impressed than ever with the group and their efforts. The long-term viability of California’s grazing lands — under siege in many ways — depends on the leadership, partnership and vision of the stakeholders in this coalition.

CRCC is a coalition of ranchers, environmentalists, land trusts, public agencies and researchers working together to preserve and enhance the ecosystems services of California’s rangeland while supporting the long-term viability of the ranching industry. The focus of the summit was on managing rangelands for multiple ecosystems services and highlighting the many public benefits rangelands provide — food provision, wildlife habitat, open space, limiting urban sprawl, watershed protection, recreation, and not least of all, carbon sequestration.

The summit also highlighted the threats to these working lands. For example, many speakers mentioned the negative impact of the defunding of the Williamson Act (a program that has provided tax incentives for farmland protection for decades) that is no longer effective in providing counter-pressure against development. A research team from UC Davis reported on rancher survey findings indicating that 42 percent of ranchers would sell some or all of their land without financial support from the Williamson Act, and 56 percent of those predicted the land would be developed for non-agricultural purposes. Jaymee Marty from The Nature Conservancy stated that their research shows the biggest threat to rangeland conversion is from intensive agriculture such as vineyards, orchards and irrigated pasture — a threat that the Williamson Act does not mitigate. This gap points to a need for better programs to protect rangeland.

This is a group not afraid to talk about climate change, both in terms of the impacts it will have and the climate benefits offered by rangelands. Many rancher members are carefully watching the carbon market in hopes that it will provide new financial incentives to keep them in business. The many scientific and political barriers to fulfilling these hopes have yet to be overcome.

To put a point on the impacts of climate change discussed at the summit, just a couple of days later a report was released called “The Impact of Climate Change on California’s Ecosystem Services.” Predictions under two climate models are both bad for ranching — warmer, drier conditions will desiccate grasslands while warmer, wetter conditions will cause intrusion of less digestible brush. Summarizing the findings for rangelands, lead author Rebecca Shaw said, “A less stable climate will reduce the ability of natural landscapes to support cattle grazing, so ranchers may have to grow or buy extra hay instead of getting it for free from nature, as they do now.”

Some of the most exciting research work in this field is coming out of the California Rangeland Watershed Laboratory at UC Davis at the Graduate Group in Ecology, both headed by Ken Tate. Several members made presentations at the summit and are closely involved with CRCC. They have a strong interest in improving their participatory research efforts by working more closely with ranchers to correlate research findings with on-the-ground experience.

One of the most interesting presentations was made by Valerie Eviner (a CalCAN science advisor) who described how difficult it is to translate scientific findings and models to real ranch conditions, and how challenging it can be for ranchers to balance competing ecosystems management and economic priorities. She acknowledged that scientists still are not able to give prescriptions to ranchers since there is so much variability in rangeland systems. She described an ambitious project they are undertaking to collect vast amounts of information and observations from ranchers in an attempt to draw connections between management strategies, geographic and climatic conditions and the resulting impacts on ecosystems indicators. CalCAN will play a supporting role in this research as it moves forward.

Keep an eye on this coalition. There is a lot to learn from their whole systems approach and collaborative multi-stakeholder structure.

Filed Under: Climate & Ag Research, Farmer Resources, Featured - Sidebar, Impacts of Climate Change Tagged With: conservation, ecosystems services, ranching, rangeland

Governor’s Budget Notes Sustainable Agricultural Solutions to Climate Change

January 11, 2012 by Jeanne Merrill 1 Comment

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

Crop Insurance Reform Must Reflect Climate Realities

December 19, 2011 by Renata Brillinger 1 Comment

There are some good reasons suggesting that we need to reevaluate federal crop insurance policies.

First, the effects of climate change are already being felt by farmers across the country. The extreme weather events of 2011 throughout the United States — including severe floods and drought, and the related economic losses into the billions of dollars — have raised awareness about the vulnerability of agriculture to more extreme and unpredictable weather patterns. Farmers, government agencies and policymakers are now considering how to be better prepared for weather extremes, including reforming how we insure farms against catastrophic losses.

Second, in the recent flurry of farm bill activity sparked by the (now failed) “super committee” process, robust debates began on how to spend public money on supporting the country’s food and farming system. There is every indication that powerful agribusiness interests will agree to reduce, or in some cases eliminate, commodity payments that for decades have guaranteed billions of dollars in revenue for producers of the major commodities (e.g., corn, soy, wheat, rice, cotton, etc.). However, this historic concession will come with a significant tradeoff — namely, the expansion of federal crop insurance payments, essentially continuing the practice of minimizing economic risk for producers of these crops. Farmers need good crop insurance. The question is how crop insurance is structured, which will impact not only what is grown and how, but whether or not taxpayers are on the hook for what could be expensive and risky policies.

Lastly, all of these debates come at time when federal policy decisions continue to be examined through the lens of budgetary austerity, and farm bill programs are no exception. In the case of crop insurance, which must be considered in light of climate change, the challenge will be to sort out what risk management programs and policies are truly the most economical and sustainable over the long term.

A new briefing, A Risky Proposition: Crop Insurance in the Face of Climate Change by the Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy (IATP) makes the case that farmers need adequate insurance, particularly in view of increased challenges caused by climate change. But the authors also argue that the support should be coupled with measures that mitigate climate change risk for agriculture and increase on-farm resilience. To do otherwise, they say, is “like offering a home owner a fire insurance policy, but not even requiring the most basic preventative measures, such as smoke alarms or fire extinguishers.”

As the authors note the current system of taxpayer-backed farm insurance isn’t working as well as it needs to. Some highlights:

Organic operations — arguably among the most resilient farming systems — pay a five percent surcharge on their insurance policies, and any losses they incur are reimbursed at conventional crop prices without consideration of the higher market value of organic products. This disadvantage should be corrected in the next farm bill.
Of particular relevance to California is the fact that fruit and vegetable producers have fewer options under the federal insurance program.
Most crop insurance policies favor less diverse operations by making it difficult to insure integrated, multi-crop, mixed crop/livestock systems. Yet one of the most important tools for resilience to climate change and other unpredictable events is to diversify. This practice must be re-examined and revised to encourage and reward diversification.

One potential solution is whole-farm revenue insurance. Our colleagues at the National Center for Appropriate Technology, in a report funded by the USDA Risk Management Agency (available by emailing Jeffs@ncat.org), make the following case:

Whole-farm revenue insurance is not currently the major way many farmers insure their production in the United States. Seventy-six percent of the total liability covered by federally subsidized crop insurance in 2010 was attributed to four crops: corn, soybeans, wheat and cotton. However, whole-farm revenue insurance could provide a more effective way to insure not only specialty crops, but all crop and livestock production in the United States. Rather than the continued proliferation of single-crop based insurance products, whole-farm revenue insurance would likely be a less costly way to provide publically subsidized insurance for farmers. We understand that one key to sustainability in agriculture is expanding crop and livestock diversity.

We believe that critical analyses and innovative proposals such as these by IATP and NCAT should underlie decisions in the next and future farm bills. Solving multiple complex problems such as agricultural risk management, climate change preparedness and economic frugality demands it.

Filed Under: Federal Policy, Impacts of Climate Change

Organic Can Feed the World

December 9, 2011 by Renata Brillinger 2 Comments

This short blog entitled “Organic Can Feed the World” in The Atlantic by Barry Estabrook is a must read. Refreshingly, he puts the responsibility on conventional agriculture to prove how it can feed the world’s population:

Given that the current food production system, which is really a 75-year-old experiment, leaves nearly one billion of the world’s seven billion humans seriously undernourished today, the onus should be on the advocates of agribusiness to prove their model can feed a future population of nine billion — not the other way around.

Estabrock cites (with links) several conclusive studies that make the case for not only the feasibility but the necessity for a global shift to organic, agroecological, and other sustainable farming systems to maintain and increase yields and increase food nutrient density. He states that a literature review by the British Soil Association found that all 98 of the papers reviewed concluded that organic agriculture does in fact have the capability to feed the world.

Importantly for both the long-term health of the planet and the economic security of farmers, organic systems are also proven to improve soil fertility, cut costs on chemical inputs, and save energy. Finally, research is increasingly demonstrating that organic methods sequester more carbon than conventional systems, can buffer against climate change impacts, and can help farmers be more resilient in the face of intensifying climate challenges.

Organic agriculture has for decades been the underdog not because the science can’t support it but because there are powerful interests protecting the failing industrial agriculture experiment. Changing policies, financial incentives, and the subsidies that prop up unsustainable practices is part of the solution to ensuring a sustainable food future.

Filed Under: General Information

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

Comprehensive Farm Bill Analysis Provided by National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

November 24, 2011 by Ted Quaday Leave a Comment

The National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition has carefully analyzed the farm bill scramble that evolved over the past few weeks in a two-part blog. The write-up provides comprehensive information regarding the status of the 2012 Farm Bill in the wake of the demise of the Super Committee.

Part one looks at likely next steps for the farm bill and the budget : http://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/2011-farm-bill-part-one/

Part two looks at known details of the farm bill as it was developed by the ag leadership in the House and Senate. This is the so-called “Secret Farm Bill: http://sustainableagriculture.net/blog/2011-farm-bill-rip-part-two/

And we wish you an enjoyable Thanksgiving Holiday with family, friends, and lots of good food raised by family farmers near you.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

New Reports Flag Climate Change Food Challenges

November 23, 2011 by Ted Quaday 1 Comment

World climate and agriculture research scientists weighed in heavily last week with two new reports that underscore the urgent need to address climate change and its potential impact on our food supply.

The first report, Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation, was issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of 220 leading climate scientists. It makes clear there is a direct link between the short-term weather extremes we’ve been experiencing and the longer-term climate changes brought on by greenhouse gas accumulation in the atmosphere.

The atmosphere is warming and has been for decades. The new IPCC analysis says that globally there is no doubt we will see increased and more extreme heat waves, droughts, and flood conditions. Each of these extremes has implications for food production in California, as we discussed in a recent blog.

The second report, produced by 13 scientists on the international Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change, is entitled Achieving Food Security in the Face of Climate Change. It cautions that the time is now to begin transforming our food production, distribution, and consumption activities. It lays out a set of action points that are sobering in their scope. As the authors put it, what is required is a “transition to a global food system that satisfies human needs, reduces its carbon footprint, adapts to climate change and is in balance with planetary resources requires concrete and coordinated actions, implemented at scale, simultaneously, and with urgency.”

The scientists warn that “business as usual in our globally interconnected food system will not bring us food security and environmental sustainability.” They add that “greatly expanded investments in sustainable agriculture, including improving supporting infrastructure and restoring degraded ecosystems, are an essential component of long-term economic development. The sooner they are made, the greater the benefits will be.”

Though these two reports are global in focus, they contain important warnings that could easily apply to food and farming here at home.

We know the obesity epidemic will have a huge financial impact on our health care system, and huge personal impacts on individuals, families, and communities. It is another indication that business as usual is neither healthy, nor sustainable.

Never has consumer interest in food been greater and better informed. The rise of the good food movement is already prompting shifts in farming practices, food policies, and consumer buying preferences. Organic sales continue to rise despite the on-going economic slide. People are demanding access to locally produced foods that are raised sustainably and arrive in the marketplace fresh and flavorful. They are using their food dollars to say clearly that they want their local family farmers and farm laborers to thrive.

New federal programs aim to improve the quality of school lunch and to provide universal access to fresh fruits and vegetables. Other programs encourage on-farm conservation practices that have provided tremendous opportunities to reverse environmental damage that is often the result of industrial agriculture practices. But these programs are under constant threat of being scaled back or eliminated.

As with most complex problems, a systems approach to the solutions is needed, and these solutions must address multiple challenges. We agree with the authors of the global food security report — sustainable agriculture solutions, grounded in a system-wide reconfiguration of how food is produced and distributed, are the most powerful way to solve many of the limits and shortcomings of our current approach.

While the international commission offered its recommendations in a global context, we believe that their call for a coordinated framework of sustainable agriculture policies and programs is applicable in California as well. Here are some actions we can take at the state level to help ensure our own food security and the economic security of our food producers:

Invest in more research to identify the best farming practices for mitigation and adaptation to climate change,
Provide more technical assistance to help farmers reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change,
Reward farmers who adopt climate-friendly food production systems that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change,
Strengthen support for on-farm conservation, and
Encourage renewable energy production through grant support and farmer-friendly policies.

We can achieve a vibrant economy that supports healthy food access, even in the face of climate change. But it will take investment. Funds generated through implementation of California’s climate change law (AB32) should go to supporting our food security in the face of challenging climate changes.

Filed Under: California Policy, General Information, Impacts of Climate Change Tagged With: California agriculture, climate change, policy, sustainable agriculture

What are farmers around the world doing to prepare for climate change?

November 15, 2011 by Elena Idell Leave a Comment

Farmers around the globe are experiencing the impacts of a changing climate. However, we don’t have to wait to see what happens to our food and farming systems. It’s possible to take proactive action now to address climate change. And some countries are doing just that.

Australia and Scotland both have innovative agriculture and climate change programs that combine farmer know-how and science to ensure sustainable farming systems for the years to come.

Australia

Australia’s Farming Future is the government-run program that assists farmers in preparing for climate change. It includes the Climate Change Research Program, the FarmReady Program, and the Climate Change Adjustment Program.

The Climate Change Research Program provides on-farm demonstrations and research on how changes in farming practices can help with climate change adaptation and mitigation of climate change for primary agricultural industries, focusing on the management of soils in farming practices, reducing greenhouse gas pollution, and adapting practices to climate change. This research program is large scale, involving various research providers, industry groups, and universities, and represents the first steps toward Australia’s solutions to climate change.

The FarmReady program is a grant program involving training farmers, indigenous land managers and farming groups in ways to develop practices for responding to the impacts of climate change. The program provides grant funding for producers to train their staff in new practices to adapt to climate change as well as undertake projects for adapting to climate change. The two grants available are the FarmReady Reimbursement Grants, which allow producers and industries to receive up to $1,500 (AUD) for training courses, and the FarmReady Industry Grants, which allow up to $80,000 (AUD) per year for the installation of farm management practices for adjusting to climate change impacts.

The Climate Change Adjustment Program is an advice, counseling, and assessment program that also aims to help producers and industries manage the impacts of climate change through training grants, financial assessment, and business analysis. This program allows farmers to use the assistance of the government to re-evaluate farming practices and create a Climate Change Action Plan for an industry in order to better its farming practices and prepare for the impacts of global warming.

The Torr Farm participates in Scotland's Climate Change Focus Farms Initiative.

Scotland

The Scottish Agricultural College’s program Farming For a Better Climate (FBCC) provides research opportunities, planning and information on ways that farmers can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change.

A related initiative, the Climate Change Focus Farms Initiative, works with four farms to demonstrate practical approaches to climate change. Through the program, each operation seeks to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and use practices that increase farm resilience to climate change. These farms are part of the program run by the government-funded Scottish Agricultural College FBCC initiative that works toward climate change research and mitigation.

One of the participating farms is Torr Farm, an organic dairy farm that uses clovers to fix nitrogen in the soil and uses nitrous oxide monitoring chambers to monitor how much nitrous oxide is released from the soils. Stewart Tower Farm is in the process of working toward combating climate change by taking account of the nutrients in farmyard manure as well as using inorganic fertilizers more efficiently.

Maintaining a viable food production base in the face of climate change is central for our health and security. By combining research, on-farm demonstration, training, and technical support Australia and Scotland are taking steps to ensure that agriculture is ready for a changing climate. There’s no reason California and the rest of the United States cannot do the same.

Filed Under: Climate & Ag Research, Farmer Resources, Impacts of Climate Change Tagged With: Australia, climate change, farmer, livestock agriculture, policy, Scotland

Weather Extremes Signal Need for Bold Action to Transform California Agriculture

November 15, 2011 by Ted Quaday Leave a Comment

It seems like not a day goes by without a report from somewhere in the world of an extreme weather event. A couple weeks ago an unusually early winter storm in New England dumped two feet of snow, cut power to millions, and caused death for some. Last week, Alaska’s Pacific Coast was slammed by a so-called “monster” storm that devastated coastal villages and threatened Nome with flooding and high winds. Last spring and summer, unusually powerful tornadoes wrecked destruction and death across wide sections of the Great Plains and South. An on-going drought in the Southwestern United States continues to threaten crops and livestock.

All this extreme weather can’t help but raise the specter of climate change as a primary cause. Quite simply, a warming atmosphere fueled by increasing greenhouse gas emissions is creating dangerous weather. Sadly, the news on the emissions front seems to be going from bad to worse. Last week the US Department of Energy reported that carbon emissions worldwide made their biggest annual increase ever in 2010. That report was followed by a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration report that it’s Annual Greenhouse Gas Index was also on the rise.

Looking at these distressing reports, the phrase that comes to mind is the Boy Scout motto “Be Prepared.” Be prepared for weirder, wackier, more extreme weather as we continue to load the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other greenhouse gases.

At the California Climate and Agriculture Network, we do a good bit of thinking about just exactly how we might prepare ourselves to face this on-going global crisis. Data analyzed in the report Ready… Or Not? tells a disturbing story — California farmers and ranchers will not escape climate change effects, and there are insufficient resources available help them cope.

A diminished Sierra snowpack will melt earlier, causing flooding in the spring and reducing water supplies over the summer. Scientists predict chill hours — the time fruit and nut trees need to spend in cooler temperatures to produce fruit — will decline dramatically over the next several decades. A drop in chill hours will threaten key California crops like nuts, grapes, stone fruit, avocadoes and some wine grape varietals.

State livestock producers, who generated $8 billion in revenues in 2009, will also face challenges. Water shortages will cut animal productivity. More livestock will die. Those that live will lose appetite, produce less milk and fewer eggs, and be less able to reproduce. None of this news is good.

California agriculture contributes $37 billion dollars annually to the state economy. Our farms and ranches are among the most productive on the planet. Clearly, we need to increase our efforts to slow and ultimately reverse this damage. We can’t afford to wait.

Concerns over the agricultural impact of climate change are gaining traction with state policy makers. The California State Board of Food and Agriculture will host a forum in mid-November to learn more about the risks our food producers face due to extreme weather events. In December, Governor Brown will host a conference on confronting climate change. We need to start now and we need bold action to help our food producers and the state’s agricultural economy meet the climate change threat.

Food producers are skilled at adapting to difficult circumstances, and the most innovative growers can lead the way to greater resilience. They know that healthy soil and expansive rangeland can trap carbon and slow climate change. They understand that on-farm water storage can help alleviate summer shortages. Crop diversity can reduce pest damage. Agricultural waste can be transformed into an energy resource.

But given the magnitude of the expected impacts of climate change, California’s farmers and ranchers will need more than individual actions if our agriculture system is to thrive in the coming decades. More research is needed to identify the best farming practices for adapting to climate change. More technical assistance is needed to help farmers make transitions. A state-level conservation program is needed to reward those farmers who adopt new, more resilient food production systems. CalCAN has detailed these and other suggested changes in a comprehensive set of policy recommendations to the Brown Administration.

Funds to support these initiatives could be provided by tapping a percentage of state revenue garnered through the sale of carbon allowances to the biggest CO₂ emitters. Strengthening support for on-farm conservation efforts is also crucial. On-going efforts to encourage renewable energy production through grant support and better policies and programs could reduce grower dependence on fossil fuels.

The challenges of extreme weather and climate change are daunting; the stakes for California’s food production system are high. Bold, innovative programs are needed now to help ensure a thriving farm economy.

Filed Under: California Policy, Climate & Ag Research, Impacts of Climate Change Tagged With: California agriculture, effects of climate change, policy, Weather

Rangeland Conservation Group Impresses with Leadership & Vision

Governor’s Budget Notes Sustainable Agricultural Solutions to Climate Change

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

Crop Insurance Reform Must Reflect Climate Realities

Organic Can Feed the World

New USDA Guide Highlights Ecosystem Credit Trading Opportunities and Challenges

Comprehensive Farm Bill Analysis Provided by National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition

New Reports Flag Climate Change Food Challenges

What are farmers around the world doing to prepare for climate change?

Weather Extremes Signal Need for Bold Action to Transform California Agriculture

Rangeland Conservation Group Impresses with Leadership & Vision

What’s New

Blog Archive

Blog Posts by Category

Tag Cloud