General Information | California Climate & Agriculture Network

USDA Report On Climate Change and Agriculture Promotes Sustainable Agriculture Practices

February 18, 2013 by Hui Qian Leave a Comment

On Feb. 4^th, the U.S. Department of Agriculture released a report titled “Climate Change and Agriculture in the United States: Effects and Adaptation,” concluding that a changing climate would pose unprecedented challenges to U.S. agriculture that require immediate adaptive actions and further scientific research. The report opens with this strong statement: “The vulnerability of agriculture to climate change is strongly dependent on the responses taken by humans to moderate the effects of climate change.”

Combining professional input and scientific research from the government, universities, non-governmental organizations, industry, and private sectors, this peer-reviewed study provides an extensive overview of the climate change effects on U.S. agricultural production, suggesting that while farmers and ranchers have a long history of successful adaptation to climate variability, the accelerating pace and intensity of projected climate change effects over the next century requires major adjustments—simply put, we need to take action to moderate those effects in the United States, and worldwide.

“Climate change poses unprecedented challenges to U.S. agriculture because of the sensitivity of agriculture productivity and costs to changing climate conditions,” the report says. Through direct (e.g., rising temperature) and indirect (e.g., increased pest pressure) effects, climatic change affect crop and livestock productivity, as well as soil and water quality—resources of key importance to agricultural production. For regions of the country that are already climate stressed (like the drought-stricken Midwest in 2012), their agricultural systems will likely need more adaptive changes to remain productive and profitable in the face of climate change.

What is especially noteworthy about this report is that it goes beyond simply providing a generic framework to look at the impact of climate change on agriculture. Importantly, it emphasizes the merits of sustainable agriculture practices and their strategic roles in mitigating and adapting to climate change. By “developing drought pest, and heat stress resistance in crops and animals, diversifying crop rotations, integrating livestock with crop production systems, improving soil quality, minimizing off-farm flow of nutrients and pesticides,” sustainable agriculture practices help farmers cope with extreme weather events and increase the overall resilience of agricultural systems under a changing climate. “Enhancing the resilience of agriculture to climate change through adaptation strategies that promote the development of sustainable agriculture is a common multiple benefit recommendation for agricultural adaptation planning,” the report concludes.

Finally, the report calls for a coherent climate policy framework that highlights the synergy between mitigation and adaptation. We couldn’t agree more. As a member of a climate change consortium recently convened by the California Department of Food and Agriculture to make recommendations on strategies for climate change adaptation, we bring a sustainable agriculture perspective to the discussion, seeking state-level policy tools to support California producers in responding to climate-related challenges.

Filed Under: Climate & Ag Research, Farmer Resources, Farmland Protection, Federal Policy, General Information, Impacts of Climate Change Tagged With: agricultural economy, CalCAN's work, California agriculture, carbon sequestration, climate change, climate legislation, drought, economic impacts, effects of climate change, farmland preservation, greenhouse gas, livestock agriculture, organic agriculture, policy, sustainable agriculture, USDA

NOAA Announces 2012 As the Warmest Year on Record for Contiguous U.S.

January 10, 2013 by Hui Qian Leave a Comment

Although not the end of the world, the year 2012 remains unusual for its extreme weather events and natural disasters. According to the scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the average temperature for the contiguous United States in 2012 was 55.3 degrees, 3.2 degrees higher than the 20^th century average and one degree above the previous record from 1998. Even worse, other than being the record warmest year, 2012 is also one of the most extreme years for the nation based on the U.S. Climate Extremes Index, second only to 1998 in terms of extreme temperature and precipitation, and landfalling tropical cyclones.

In addition to record heat, a historic drought and several storms also happened last year, causing significant losses to agriculture and related industries. Economic damage inflicted by Hurricane Sandy alone is estimated to reach $50 billion, according to The New York Times.

Rising temperatures and related devastating climate events are not freak events but maybe just the beginning of a long term trend of climate deterioration. Researchers of the National Climatic Data Center at the NOAA said the higher temperatures are consistent with their observation and people are going to see more extreme weather with increasing frequency.

Later this year, the state of California will release its climate readiness report that lays out what actions our communities and industries will need to take to prepare for a changing climate. CalCAN will continue to advocate for resources for agriculture to better prepare for more extreme weather events which will challenge one of our most basic needs – food production.

Filed Under: California Policy, Climate & Ag Research, Federal Policy, General Information, Impacts of Climate Change Tagged With: agricultural economy, agriculture, CalCAN's work, California agriculture, CARB, climate change, climate legislation, climate models, drought, economic impacts, effects of climate change, greenhouse gas, organic agriculture, sustainable agriculture

On-Farm Water Storage & Retention

December 13, 2012 by Renata Brillinger Leave a Comment

In November, the California Roundtable on Water and Food Supply released a report entitled From Storage to Retention: Expanding California’s Options for Meeting Its Water Needs. The report argues for an expansion of approaches to storing water that increase supply reliability for specialty crop agricultural production and other beneficial uses while protecting ecosystem health.

The report describes several water storage strategies that we agree have not received sufficient attention and resources, namely:

(A) restoration and enhancement of upper watersheds and soils
(B) distributed off-stream surface storage
(C) groundwater management and storage

It describes a broad range of options, including a patchwork of on-farm ponds, expanded soil capacity to retain water and improvements in groundwater recharge. There is work to be done to influence policy, allocations of funding and to provide support for technical advisors for these important solutions. This report — produced with the input of a diverse group of expert stakeholders – lays a solid foundation for achieving the many climate, environmental, health and economic benefits possible with a water stewardship approach.

For more information and to download the report, please see http://aginnovations.org/articles/view/storage/. A related on-line resource — the Agricultural Water Stewardship Resource Center — provides case studies and referrals to experts on various techniques and practices.

Filed Under: California Policy, General Information Tagged With: groundwater, groundwater recharge, ponds, restoration, water stewardship, water storage, watershed

A Wake Up Call From “The Dust Bowl”

December 13, 2012 by Hui Qian Leave a Comment

Filmmaker Ken Burns’ latest documentary “The Dust Bowl” aired on PBS in November, serves as a reminder and wake-up call about the threats posed by climate change to agriculture.

The documentary, consisting of two 2-hour films “The Great Plow-Up” and “Reaping the Whirlwind”, brings to the audience a vivid picture of one of the darkest times of the 20^th century through a combination of survivor’s accounts, historian’s input, and dramatic movie footage. According to PBS, “The Dust Bowl chronicles the worst man-made ecological disaster in American history, in which the frenzied wheat boom of the ‘Great Plow-Up,’ followed by a decade-long drought during the 1930s nearly swept away the breadbasket of the nation… It is also a morality tale about our relationship to the land that sustains us—a lesson we ignore at our peril.”

“We were just too selfish and were trying to make more money off of the wheat, and it didn’t work out,” says one survivor. Resulted from both severe drought and unsustainable farming practices, the 1930s Dust Bowl left millions of acres of farmland ruined and hundreds of thousands of people dislocated, causing incalculable damage to the environment and economy.

“The next dust bowl” published in Nature, Joe Romm wrote, “Warming causes greater evaporation and, once the ground is dry, the Sun’s energy goes into baking the soil, leading to a further increase in air temperature. That is why, for instance, so many temperature records were set for the United States in the 1930s Dust Bowl; and why, in 2011, drought-stricken Texas saw the hottest summer ever recorded for a US state.”

So, are there any lessons from the 1930s Dust Bowl applicable to California agriculture? Certainly water issues top the list of concerns — at times flooding from early and rapid spring melting of the Sierra snow pack will challenge growers, and later in the dry season water scarcity will be the problem. With some notable exceptions in parts of the Central Valley, severe dust issues are not likely (though Romm argues that the risks have been underestimated).

Nonetheless, there are practices that California growers can adopt to buffer against the myriad of potential climate challenges. Investing in soil building tops the list. Practices such as cover cropping, applying compost and manure and conservation tillage increase the soil organic matter and provide many benefits — for example, increased water penetration and retention, reduced runoff and erosion, elevated carbon sequestration, enhanced fertility and productivity and economic gain. Investing in soil organic matter may be the best insurance policy a farmer can get to buffer against climate change and whatever version of a dust bowl disaster may California face.

Filed Under: California Policy, Climate & Ag Research, General Information, Impacts of Climate Change Tagged With: agricultural economy, California agriculture, climate change, drought, economic impacts, effects of climate change, farmer, farmland preservation, sustainable agriculture, water shortages

CaliforniaFIRST Program Helps Finance Energy Efficiency Upgrades

November 2, 2012 by Hui Qian Leave a Comment

For some California farmers and ranchers who are interested investing in energy efficiency upgrades, the launch of the CaliforniaFIRST program in late September could be welcome news: no upfront cost necessary as long as the property owner agrees to repay the cost of the improvements through an annual property tax assessment lasting up to 20 years.

As the nation’s largest property assessed clean energy (PACE) program, the CaliforniaFIRST program is developed in an effort to help owners of office, multi-family residential (5 or more units), retail, industrial, and agriculture properties in 14 counties and 126 cities in California reduce energy and water use. The new program is backed by $250 million of private capital, and according to Renewable Funding, the CaliforniaFIRST program administrator, it covers a wide range of energy efficiency, water efficiency and renewable energy upgrades, including but not limited to insulation, rooftop PV, and grey water systems.

“Commercial PACE gives businesses a great option for pursuing energy efficiency projects that may have previously been out of reach,” says San Diego County Supervisor Dianne Jacob. “The County’s partnership with CaliforniaFIRST provides a mechanism for participants to start spending less money on energy bills and more back into the business.”

Considering the role agriculture plays in the state’s economy and its potential for energy and cost savings, CalCAN sees CaliforniaFIRST as an opportunity to finance energy efficiency projects in the agriculture sector, especially for growers in need of financial support to increase efficiency of their operations. Furthermore, because energy efficiency measures and on-farm renewable energy production can reduce GHG emissions while providing energy and cost savings, the CaliforniaFIRST program also provides a way for agriculture producers to help mitigate the impacts of climate change.

More information about the CaliforniaFIRST program and the regions where it is available can be found at https://californiafirst.org/overview.

Filed Under: California Policy, Farmer Resources, General Information, Renewable Energy Tagged With: agricultural economy, California agriculture, climate change, energy efficiency, farmer, financial incentive, on-farm energy, on-farm renewable energy, policy, water shortages

Extreme Weather Due to Global Warming Leads to Food Price Spikes

October 16, 2012 by Hui Qian Leave a Comment

As the most severe and extensive drought to strike the U.S. in over half a century, the 2012 drought has already brought serious impacts on U.S. agriculture as well as a considerable increase in retail prices of numerous crops—corn in particular. According to the USDA, this season’s corn yield will fall 15.5% to its lowest level since 1995, causing its price to rise by as much as 39% ($8.90 a bushel).

As significant as this is, it may only be the beginning of future food price shocks. Titled “Extreme Weather, Extreme Prices”, a newly released briefing based on recent research commissioned by Oxfam makes conservative predictions that “the average price of staple foods such as maize could more than double in the next 20 years compared with 2010 trend prices – with up to half of the increase due to changes in average temperatures and rainfall patterns.”

How did all this happen? NOT all of a sudden. The report lists some weather extremes that occurred in the past year alone: for example, in July 2012 the U.S. survived the country’s hottest month on record and China experienced the heaviest recorded rainfall that hit Beijing in a 14-hour period. While previous research only considers the gradual effects of climate change, such as warming temperatures and changing rainfall patterns, Oxfam’s new research models “extreme weather event scenarios in 2030 for sub-Saharan Africa and for each of the main global export regions for rice, maize, and wheat.” By doing so, it examines the impact of extreme weather and thus directs attention to the combination of long-term climate impacts and extreme weather shocks.

“Rising temperatures and changing rainfall patterns hold back crop production and cause steady price rises,” Oxfam’s Climate Change Policy Adviser Tim Gore said. “But extreme weather events – like the current US drought – can wipe out entire harvests and trigger dramatic food price spikes.”

While food prices spikes in the developed world cause economic difficulties especially for low income residents, they are “a matter of life and death to many people in developing countries, who spend as much as 75 per cent of their income on food,” the report states. Because North America could remain the largest wheat and maize exporter by 2030, many developing countries in Central Asia, Central America, North Africa, and the Middle East would therefore be hit hard as they may have even higher dependence on food imports by then. “We will all feel the impact as prices spike but the poorest people will be hit hardest,” Gore commented.

The fact that this year’s price increase represents the third spike in the last four years further underscores the great urgency of this situation. As the Oxfam report says, the global food system should be fully “stress-tested” for how climate change will impact it.

Here in California, a significant food producer globally, our farms and ranches are at risk of increased water scarcity, unpredictable weather, deeper and more frequent droughts, spring floods, and more. Plans must be made and resources devoted to assuring the preparedness of the state’s farms to face climate change.

Climate and economic change: Lessons from Scotland

August 9, 2012 by Jeanne Merrill Leave a Comment

On a recent trip to Scotland, I had the opportunity to sit down with Lyn Matheson with the Soil Association to discuss their work on climate change and agriculture. The Soil Association has a diversity of technical, policy, certification and education programs to support and expand organic food and farming in Great Britain.

Photo courtesy of the Soil Association.

Over a cup of tea and biscuits on a rainy July day in Edinburgh, Lyn described their project The Future Proofing of Scotland’s Agriculture. Recognizing that climate change will have some its greatest impacts on Scotland’s farming sector, the Soil Association of Scotland launched a program of technical assistance for farmers — aimed not just at organic producers, but producers of all kinds — on how they can reduce their carbon footprint and improve their bottom-line. The program, now in its fourth year, aims to “prepare agricultural businesses for the impacts, opportunities and risks that both climate and economic change bring.”

Scotland’s agriculture is predominantly livestock-based, covering about 75 percent of the country’s land mass. Small grain crops, including barley for whiskey production, make up the second largest commodity group in the country, followed by potato, canola and fruit and vegetable production. The majority of farms are small and mid-sized family operations with the average farm income $60,000 in U.S. dollars.

Some of the questions facing Scotland’s farmers will be familiar to many U.S. producers: how best to improve nutrient management, enhance livestock and forage production, produce renewable energy and cut energy costs. Through workshops and farm visits with tangible examples of successful projects, Lyn brings together farmers, agronomists and other technical experts.

The workshops consistently fill up with farmer participants, some with waiting lists. The reason? According to Lyn, the key is to provide information that can make a difference for farmers now – energy savings, lower fertilizer bills, etc. – while highlighting the long term benefits of making their farms more resilient in the face of a changing climate.

The Soil Association’s program is one piece of multiple-pronged strategy to address climate change and agriculture issues in Scotland. Click here for more details.

Filed Under: Farmer Resources, General Information Tagged With: agriculture, climate change, economic impacts, Scotland, technical assistance

Report from the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change

April 4, 2012 by Renata Brillinger Leave a Comment

Guest Blog:

Doreen Stabinsky is a Professor of Global Environmental Politics at College of the Atlantic in Bar Harbor, ME. She is also a consultant and advisor on agriculture and climate change

“On a planet with sufficient food for all, a billion people go hungry. Another billion over-consume, increasing risks from chronic diseases.”

Last week, yet another high-level report on a topic of global concern was published by yet another group of eminent experts – this one on food security and climate change. The eminent experts – the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change – were assembled by a group of donor countries and the World Bank for the one-year task of producing the report and its recommendations.

High-profile attention to an issue as urgent as climate change impacts on agriculture is certainly welcome. With countries globally lagging in their attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to levels that will prevent dangerous temperature increases and the Kyoto Protocol gasping its last breaths as industrialized countries jump ship from legal obligations to reduce their emissions, someone needs to ring alarm bells about what increased temperatures and changing precipitation patterns mean for global food supplies.

Researchers at Stanford University last year published in Science magazine findings that global yields in maize and wheat had already decreased 3.8 to 5.5% respectively due to increasing temperatures. Current projections are for average global temperature increases of between 2.5 and 5° Celsius (4.5-9° Fahrenheit) before the end of this century. The Commission warns that: “Climate change above 3°C risks overall decreases in the global food production capacity that would be profoundly destabilizing even in places where food production remains adequate locally.”

For those looking for a brief, comprehensive introduction to the impacts of climate change on agriculture and food security, the report provides a well-referenced, solid and more-or-less balanced treatment. Industrial-scale, chemical-dependent agriculture (albeit disguised as “sustainable intensification”) has its place in the report, as do resource-conserving technologies and agroecological methods of production. As indicated by my opening quote, the report considers the food security challenges of both poverty and affluence. Notably, the Commission takes on the issue of food waste, writing for example that in the UK, “approximately 22% of household food and drink is wasted.”

Yet after a very thorough establishment of the problems to be addressed, the report proposes some oddly non-sequitur recommendations. The number one recommendation? Establish a “work programme” on agriculture under the Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The lead on food security and climate change policy at the global level isn’t to be taken by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and its Committee on World Food Security (which aren’t even mentioned in the list of possible relevant international institutions). It’s to be handled by an obscure, hyper-politicized subsidiary body of the climate change convention.

Expert reports are not immune to global political squabbles. In fact, expert commissions are sometimes established in order to obscure the politics behind conflicts through unbiased, objective, “expert” advice. With the bizarre prioritization of its recommendations, the Commission on Sustainable Agriculture and Climate Change provides hints that such an end is indeed at least part of its raison d’être.

At the global political level there is an ongoing fight between rich and poor countries on taking responsibility for action to stem the global climate crisis. Rich countries and the World Bank (the donors for the work of the Commission) are keen to have a work program on agriculture under the UNFCCC. They want to establish a mechanism through which poor countries do the work of reducing greenhouse gas levels through storing carbon in their soils and rich countries are relieved of the burden of reducing their own agricultural emissions. Up to this point, poor countries are not agreeing to that mode of “burden sharing,” not least because permanent emission reductions on the part of major emitters are essential to stemming the threat of climate change and soil carbon sequestration will only ever be uncertain and temporary.

(In addition to funding the Commission, the World Bank paid for a series of meetings over the course of 2011, all of which coincidentally concluded that a UNFCCC SBSTA work program was necessary. The findings of all these “expert” meetings have been exhaustively reiterated by rich country governments in the climate negotiations on a work program.)

Putting recommendation 1 and its obscure political messages aside, the report does provide useful recommendations, though means of implementation are less clear. Some of the recommendations are even bold and novel (for international policymakers anyway), such as recommendations to reshape food access and consumption patterns and to reduce loss and waste in food systems. In recommendation number two, the Commission highlights the need to significantly raise the level of global investment in sustainable agriculture.

Undoubtedly, however, given the seriousness of the challenges ahead of us, the most important message of the report lies in its final call to action: “Without a global commitment to reducing GHG emissions from all sectors, including agriculture, no amount of agricultural adaptation will be sufficient under the destabilized climate of the future. While change will have significant costs, the cost of remaining on the current path is already enormous and growing. Given the already intolerable conditions of many livelihoods and ecosystems, and the time lag between R&D and widespread application, urgent action must be taken now.”

Filed Under: Climate & Ag Research, General Information

Organic Can Feed the World

December 9, 2011 by Renata Brillinger 1 Comment

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 Reports Flag Climate Change Food Challenges

November 23, 2011 by Ted Quaday Leave a 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