Green Design » Food and Farming

Agroforestry Found On Nearly Half The World’s Farms

Ben Block — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 20:34:56 +0000

For centuries, farmers have placed trees among their crops to enhance soil health, raise marketable fruits or nuts, and protect row crops from damaging winds. Yet agroforestry, as the practice is known, is generally considered a rarity among mainstream farmers.

New data suggests that more farmers practice agroforestry than previously appreciated. Nearly half of the world's farmlands have at least 10 percent tree cover, more than 10 million square kilometers in total, the Nairobi-based World Agroforestry Centre announced this week.

"This study offers convincing evidence that farms and forests are in no way mutually exclusive. Trees are in fact critical to agricultural production everywhere," said Nobel Peace Prize laureate Wangari Maathai, founder of Kenya's Green Belt Movement, in a statement [PDF]. Maathai was not involved in the study.

Agroforestry has long been promoted by sustainable agriculture advocates. The practice is now gaining increased attention for its potential to sequester large amounts of carbon dioxide.

Agroforestry systems are used for five main purposes: increase farm value by putting crops between trees; provide shelter for forest crops such as mushrooms and ginseng; form a buffer along streams and lakes to filter pollution and prevent erosion; provide shade for livestock on pasture lands; and protect sensitive plants and animals from wind.

"If planted systematically on farms, trees could improve the resiliency of farmers by providing them with food and income," said Tony Simons, deputy director general of the Centre. "When crops and livestock fail, trees often withstand drought conditions and allow people to hold over until the next season."

Previous efforts to quantify the extent of agroforestry have struggled to differentiate mixed stands of trees and crops on a global scale. This study was unique, its authors said, due to the use of advanced satellite imagery that identified populated regions with arable land. In these agricultural areas, the authors assumed that existing tree cover represented a viable agroforestry system.

While more encompassing than previous agroforestry estimates, the study has its limitations. Mainly, a satellite image does not explain what farmers are actually doing on-the-ground. "We cannot expect results for an individual pixel (1 kilometer x 1 kilometer) to be close to reality," the report said.

Due to its uncertainties, the study provided a wide estimate. Between 17 and 46 percent of all agricultural land involves agroforestry, the report said.

The study found large areas of agroforestry in South America (3.2 million squared kilometers), sub-Saharan Africa (1.9 million squared kilometers), and Southeast Asia (1.3 million squared kilometers).

The report, released at the start of this week's World Agroforestry Congress in Kenya, comes as many agroforestry researchers and farmers are lobbying for international climate negotiators to include agroforestry in the successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol.

Polluters in developed countries may offset their emissions by planting new trees on deforested land or in areas where trees have not naturally grown (known as reforestation and afforestation, respectively). Negotiators will decide at the climate summit in Copenhagen this December whether farmers should be compensated for practices that sequester carbon on their land, such as the use of biochar, no-till farming, and agroforestry.

"Indeed, agroforestry's relevance to sustainable development in the 21^st century has in many ways come of age in part through the lens of climate change," said UN Environment Programme (UNEP) Executive Director Achim Steiner, in the opening speech of the World Agroforestry Congress on Monday.

UNEP estimates that 6 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent could be sequestered on farmland by 2030 if agricultural practices such as agroforestry were more widely adopted. In addition to absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, some trees can also capture nitrogen and therefore reduce the need for energy-intensive nitrogen fertilizer.

Some climate experts remain dubious that land use changes should be relied upon for near-term reductions in greenhouse gases. The projects sequester carbon when plants are growing, so sudden changes, such as a fire or deforestation, would cause the project to release the carbon stored within the plants and soil. Meanwhile, the polluter who financed the offset project continues to release emissions.

Agroforestry may also not be the most cost-effective use of carbon funds. Reforestation, improved logging, and fire prevention projects may sequester more greenhouse gases at a cheaper cost, said Jack Putz, a University of Florida forest ecologist.

"It's hard to say it's a bad option for sequestering carbon because of the ancillary benefits. That said, an agroforest is not a forest in the sense of biological diversity," Putz said. "Keeping forests as intact as possible is a very cost-effective way of sequestering carbon."

In preparation for incoming carbon funds for agroforestry, the World Agroforestry Centre and UNEP are developing a standard method for measuring carbon sequestration across all landscape types.

"I suspect [agroforestry] is where a lot of the funding is going to go," Putz said.

Read more about this in the Worldchanging archives:
Trees: The Anti-Desert
Agricultural Sustainability = Agricultural Productivity

Ben Block is a staff writer with the Worldwatch Institute. He can be reached at bblock@worldwatch.org. This article is a product of Eye on Earth, Worldwatch Institute's online news service.

Photo credit: Flickr/treesftf, Creative Commons License.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Ben Block in Food and Farming at 12:34 PM)

The Case Against Organic Food Does Not Stand Up

WorldChanging Team — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:55:28 +0000

By Peter Melchett

There really are nutritional benefits, as research to be published next year will show

Ben Goldacre says the Soil Association's criticism of the recent Food Standards Agency research on nutrients is "not about organic food" and that "the emotive commentary in favour of organic farming bundles together diverse and legitimate concerns about unchecked capitalism in our food supply" (Bad Science: Argument is about capitalism, not food, 1 August). In fact, our argument with the FSA research is about whether it gives a fair and accurate picture of organic food.

Goldacre claims that the Soil Association put forward three "bad arguments". If he had talked to us, he would not have misunderstood our views. First, he said we were trying to change the argument by saying that "the important issue with organic food is not personal health benefits, but rather benefit to the environment". More farmland wildlife, high animal welfare and lower pollution were not mentioned in our own initial response, but were put forward strongly by the government when the FSA launched its report, and we repeated it as the government's view, with which we agree.

Second, we argued that absence of pesticides, no routine use of antibiotics on farm animals and far fewer additives allowed in organic food all deliver health benefits. Goldacre says that as these "cannot be measured" by the FSA research, mentioning them "is gamesmanship". These are real benefits, confirmed by other research. But we also answered the FSA head-on, making clear that more recent science than the FSA's has found more beneficial nutrients in organic food.

Third, Goldacre says we wrongly said the FSA "deliberately excluded evidence". When the FSA announced its review two years ago, we asked it to wait so it could include the results of the largest-ever research programme into organic food, funded by the EU. It refused. Goldacre claimed of the EU papers published so far, "almost all are irrelevant". The full results of the five years of EU research, presented at a conference in April, and including a positive review of nutritional differences, will be peer-reviewed and published next spring. Goldacre would have learnt this if he had talked to the scientists involved.

There are real questions about how the FSA framed its review, and a rational explanation for it reaching different conclusions from more recent reviews. For example, the FSA study was organised in ways which introduced significant variability into the data. It included "shopping basket" studies, known to give particularly variable results for nutritional content, because they do not control for differences in growing and harvesting conditions. So although it mostly found positive differences in the nutrients it looked at in organic food, it rejected most of them as too variable to be statistically significant.

That left a small number of positive differences in nutrients which the FSA could not dismiss as statistically insignificant. The researchers simply decided, in their opinion, that the significant results were not "important", and "no important differences" was the result they announced. That really is bad science.

Peter Melchett is policy director of the Soil Association pmelchett@soilassociation.org

This piece originally appeared in The Guardian.

Photo credit: Flickr/ILoveButter, Creative Commons License.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Food and Farming at 11:55 AM)

Are You a Vegetarian, or Just Vegcurious?

Sarah Kuck — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 19:50:42 +0000

News about the planetary impacts of meat-based diets is causing some eaters to reconsider their carnivorous ways. Red meat in particular results in a disproportionately higher amount of greenhouse gas emissions than other food, is often processed in unsanitary, unethical conditions and is responsible for a number of adverse health affects. Yet most find it difficult or even undesirable to cut meat out altogether.

People everywhere have cultural, monetary, religious and personal reasons behind what they choose to eat. However, with few exceptions, most people in most countries eat meat. This is especially true in the United States, where meat production has increased by 500 percent since 1950 to keep up with the American appetite for chicken, lamb, pork and beef.

But this is slowly changing. Although only 3.2 percent of Americans told the Vegetarian Times that they follow a vegetarian diet, nearly 10 percent reported that they eat a vegetarian-inclined diet, and 5 percent said that they are “definitely interested” in following a vegetarian-based diet in the future. That adds up to more than 40 million people changing their minds about meat.

For many people, making the switch takes time. To test the waters, some people are trying Meatless Mondays to cut down on the number of times a week they eat meat. Others only eat meat at dinner time, or cut out specific types of meat altogether.

And as the number of people who choose to eat mostly plants increases, so are the number of ways to describe and explain why they eat what they do. One of my new favorite words for describing someone who is a part-time vegetarian is vegcurious. Vegcurious is a term used to refer to someone who does not identify as vegan or vegetarian but feels or shows some curiosity in cutting meat and dairy products out of their diets. Some people also call this flexitarian. They occasionally like to eat meat, fish and dairy products, but are keen to practice a diet less destructive to the planet.

In addition to the traditionally strict vegetarian (no meat) and vegan diets (no animal products), there are also pescetarians, who will eat fish and/or seafood and freegans, who live a lifestyle that involves eating what's free (especially if it has been or is about to be tossed out), in order to make a political statement about waste and justice. Are these neologisms here to stay? Are such definitions useful?

When I was late for class, I once had a teacher who would reassuringly say "better late than never." I wonder, does this sentiment carry over to the food argument? Is it better to be a mindful meat eater than an unconscious carnivore? Or are we just making excuses?

Image credit: Mike Knell, Creative Commons License

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Sarah Kuck in Food and Farming at 11:50 AM)

Are You a Vegetarian, or Just Vegcurious?

Sarah Kuck — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:55:42 +0000

News about the planetary impacts of meat-based diets is causing some eaters to reconsider their carnivorous ways. Red meat in particular results in a disproportionately higher amount of greenhouse gas emissions than other food, is often processed in unsanitary, unethical conditions and is responsible for a number of adverse health affects. Yet most find it difficult or even undesirable to cut meat out altogether.

People everywhere have cultural, monetary, religious and personal reasons behind what they choose to eat. However, with few exceptions, most people in most countries eat meat. This is especially true in the United States, where meat production has increased by 500 percent since 1950 to keep up with the American appetite for chicken, lamb, pork and beef.

But this is slowly changing. Although only 3.2 percent of Americans told the Vegetarian Times that they follow a vegetarian diet, nearly 10 percent reported that they eat a vegetarian-inclined diet, and 5 percent said that they are “definitely interested” in following a vegetarian-based diet in the future. That adds up to more than 40 million people changing their minds about meat.

For many people, making the switch takes time. To test the waters, some people are trying Meatless Mondays to cut down on the number of times a week they eat meat. Others only eat meat at dinner time, or cut out specific types of meat altogether.

And as the number of people who choose to eat mostly plants increases, so are the number of ways to describe and explain why they eat what they do. One of my new favorite words for describing someone who is a part-time vegetarian is vegcurious. Vegcurious is a term used to refer to someone who does not identify as vegan or vegetarian but feels or shows some curiosity in cutting meat and dairy products out of their diets. Some people also call this flexitarian. They occasionally like to eat meat, fish and dairy products, but are keen to practice a diet less destructive to the planet.

In addition to the traditionally strict vegetarian (no meat) and vegan diets (no animal products), there are also pescetarians, who will eat fish and/or seafood and freegans, who live a lifestyle that involves eating what's free (especially if it has been or is about to be tossed out), in order to make a political statement about waste and justice. Are these neologisms here to stay? Are such definitions useful?

When I was late for class, I once had a teacher who would reassuringly say "better late than never." I wonder, does this sentiment carry over to the food argument? Is it better to be a mindful meat eater than an unconscious carnivore? Or are we just making excuses?

Image credit: Mike Knell, Creative Commons License

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Sarah Kuck in Food and Farming at 4:55 PM)

What’s in a Name? For the Slimehead and Toothfish, the Extreme Makeover Leads to Rampant Overfishing

Joe Romm — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:50:33 +0000

“If the slimehead were still a slimehead, it wouldn’t be in this kind of trouble,” begins a good WashPost story today on overfishing of the Orange roughy and other fish with popular nom de plumes.

As lakes and oceans have been depleted by heavy fishing, the seafood industry tried to dress up what was left — former ‘trash’ species, and unfamiliar fish from the deep ocean — with new names to improve their popularity.

The Post story is based on a major report on the world’s seafood stocks published in Science, “Rebuilding Global Fisheries” (subs. req’d), which found that 63 percent of assessed fish stocks, species are below healthy levels. I feel compelled to note that the lead author of this major report on overfishing is Boris Worm. I can only imagine what he went through as a child….

Worm predicted that “if fishing continued at the same rate, all the world’s seafood stocks would collapse by 2048.” The world’s fish catch “has grown more than fivefold since 1950.” The result:

The depleted stocks include familiar fish such as the Atlantic cod, which has been fished so heavily that the Georges Bank population off New England is at 12 percent of healthy levels. The Gulf of Mexico’s red snapper stocks are at 6 percent of what scientists say they should be.

And that has led to the makeover of previously unpopular fish:

The most famous case involves the Patagonian toothfish and the Antarctic toothfish — drab, yard-long creatures from the cold waters near the South Pole. In the 1970s, they were rechristened “Chilean sea bass,” although they are not, biologically speaking, sea bass.

The toothfish’s new name and the firm, oily meat found a huge market. In recent years, environmentalists have said both toothfish are now threatened with heavy fishing, including by “pirate” fishing boats that ignore conservation laws.

The slimehead had similar troubles. Environmentalists say they live long — 100 years or more — and reproduce slowly, so it takes a long time to replace fish that are caught.

And along the U.S. Atlantic Coast, fishermen used to toss back a toad-colored fish that looked like it was 30 percent mouth and 50 percent stomach: the goosefish. Then somebody noticed that the tail meat could be cut into tasty fillets. Then, someone thought of “monkfish.” Harvests jumped five times from the mid-1980s to the late 1990s, and the fish’s numbers dropped.

The Science study itself itself suggests the problem can be solved:

[Worm] said the latest study actually revealed something surprising: a reason for optimism.About half of the depleted species might actually have a chance to recover, the scientists found, if given enough protection.

All that is required for this recovery is for humanity to bear “short-term costs” and adopt a variety of proactive environmental strategies. Now does that sound like a behavior pattern common to the subspecies homo “sapiens” sapiens?
Indeed, if the study has any flaw, it is an utter lack of discussion of global warming. A 2009 study in Nature Geoscience warned that global warming may create “dead zones” in the ocean that would be devoid of fish and seafood and endure for up to two millennia (see Ocean dead zones to expand, “remain for thousands of years”).

Kind of hard to recover fish stocks if we wipe out the coral reefs, “put calcification out of business in the oceans,” and generally render the seas inhospitable to complex life forms.

You can read the study abstract online, so let me end with the study’s conclusions:

Conclusions. Marine ecosystems are currently subjected to arange of exploitation rates, resulting in a mosaic of stable,declining, collapsed, and rebuilding fish stocks and ecosystems.Management actions have achieved measurable reductions in exploitationrates in some regions, but a significant fraction of stockswill remain collapsed unless there are further reductions inexploitation rates. Unfortunately, effective controls on exploitationrates are still lacking in vast areas of the ocean, includingthose beyond national jurisdiction

. Ecosystems examinedin this paper account for less than a quarter of world fisheriesarea and catch, and lightly to moderately fished and rebuildingecosystems (green and yellow areas in comprise lessthan half of those. They may best be interpreted as large-scalerestoration experiments that demonstrate opportunities for successfullyrebuilding marine resources elsewhere. Similar trajectoriesof recovery have been documented in protected areas around theworld, which currently cover less than 1% of oceanarea.

Taken together, these examples provide hope that despitea long history of overexploitation marine ecosystemscan still recover if exploitation rates are reduced substantially.In fisheries science, there is a growing consensus that theexploitation rate that achieves maximum sustainable yield (u_MSY)should be reinterpreted as an upper limit rather than a managementtarget. This requires overall reductions in exploitation rates,which can be achieved through a range of management tools. Findingthe best management tools may depend on the local context. Mostoften, it appears that a combination of traditional approaches(catch quotas, community management) coupled with strategicallyplaced fishing closures, more selective fishing gear, oceanzoning, and economic incentives holds much promise for restoringmarine fisheries and ecosystems. Within science, a new cooperationof fisheries scientists and conservation biologists sharingthe best available data, and bridging disciplinary divisions,will help to inform and improve ecosystem management. We envisiona seascape where the rebuilding, conservation, and sustainableuse of marine resources become unifying themes for science,management, and society. We caution that the road to recoveryis not always simple and not without short-term costs. Yet,it remains our only option for insuring fisheries and marineecosystems against further depletion and collapse.

This piece originally appeared in Climate Progress.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Joe Romm in Food and Farming at 11:50 AM)

USDA: Economic Benefits Of Climate Bill For Farmers ‘Easily Trump’ The Costs

Joe Romm — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:45:59 +0000

Given the importance of the agricultural sector to climate action, I’m going to repost both a Wonk Room piece by Brad Johnson and an analysis by Jake Caldwell, Director of Policy for Agriculture, Trade & Energy at American Progress.

In testimony before the Senate Agriculture Committee today, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack debunked conservative fearmongering of the cost of cap-and-trade legislation on American farmers. Right-wing organizations from the Heritage Foundation to the American Farm Bureau have presented flawed analyses of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) to claim that a cap on global warming pollution would lead to a “permanent drought season” for the agricultural sector. At the request of Republican Senators Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Mike Johanns (R-NE), the U.S. Department of Agriculture conducted their own analysis of the clean energy legislation. As Vilsack testified, the USDA found that “the economic benefits to agriculture from cap and trade legislation will likely outweigh the costs”:

HR 2454’s creation of an offset market will create opportunities for the agricultural sector. In particular, our analysis indicates that annual net returns to farmers range from about $1 billion per year in 2015-20 to almost $15-20 billion in 2040-50, not accounting for the costs of implementing offset practices.

So, let me be clear about the implications of this analysis. In the short term, the economic benefits to agriculture from cap and trade legislation will likely outweigh the costs. In the long term, the economic benefits from offsets markets easily trump increased input costs from cap and trade legislation. Let me also note that we believe these figures are conservative because we aren’t able to model the types of technological change that are very likely to help farmers produce more crops and livestock with fewer inputs.

This analysis comports with the findings of the Brookings Institution, which found that a cap-and-trade system without an offset program would have little economic impact on the agricultural sector. Furthermore, not only does the USDA analysis not take into account the rewards of technology innovation, demand for biofuels, or opportunities for wind farms, it fails to account for the costs of inaction. Global warming has already hit American farmers hard, leading to reduced crop yields from droughts, floods, extreme storms, heat waves, seasonal shifts, and increased pestilence. In coming years, these disasters for farmers are expected to increase dramatically if no action is taken to address global warming.

The reality is that Waxman-Markey is both necessary for the survival of American farmers and an economic boon. The real debate Washington should be having is whether the concessions made on behalf of existing industrial agricultural giants weaken that opportunity — not only for the American public at large, but for the farmers themselves.

The USDA Office of the Chief Economist has released its analysis:

The House climate bill will likely have small but significant effects on crop and livestock producers. Over the short run, impacts are largely negligible due to the EITE provisions of the bill which would shield producers from the effects of higher natural gas prices on fertilizer prices. After 2025, however, fertilizer prices would likely increase. While energy-intensive crops will be most affected, the legislation also provides significant opportunities to offset increased costs through carbon sequestration activities. Our analysis does not assess the change in farm income due to the Renewable Electricity Standard provisions in HR 2454. Greater demand for renewable electricity will put upward pressure on the demand for biomass and provide an added source of farm income.

[Here is Caldwell's piece.]

Today the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture conducts a welcome hearing on comprehensive clean energy and climate change legislation. Rural America has a great deal to gain from Senate action on comprehensive clean energy and climate change. It represents an opportunity to raise incomes, create jobs, reduce dependence on foreign oil, stabilize volatile input prices, and reduce the threat posed by extreme weather to rural livelihoods and the nation’s food and energy supplies.

Little or no action is a huge gamble. It places the fate of U.S. agriculture in a byzantine administrative process of federal regulation led by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act.

What’s more, opposition to clean energy and climate change legislation could forever erase any of the benefits secured for farmers in the House version of the legislation. Senate action on clean energy and climate change legislation is necessary in order to ensure the benefits of these provisions survive and are delivered to rural America.

And inaction on clean energy and global warming represents ongoing adherence to a status quo of roller coaster energy prices, extreme weather events, and increasing dependence on disaster assistance.

The key benefits and gains for rural America secured in the House bill include:

Cap-and-trade exemptions for agriculture and forestry. The agricultural and forestry sectors are fully exempt from carbon emissions caps under the House and Senate climate legislation’s longstanding cap-and-trade approach. This means that these industries do not have to buy pollution allowances.

Incentives for farms and forests to sequester more global warming pollution. U.S. agricultural and forest lands sequester 246 million metric tons of carbon annually, absorbing 13 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Appropriate incentives could enable these lands to ultimately absorb 50 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Clean energy and climate change legislation promotes U.S. agricultural lands as a “carbon sink” by encouraging a whole range of good practices that many farmers are already doing, including: modest tillage practices, tree and perennial planting, erosion prevention, rotational grazing, and winter cover cropping.

The opportunity for farmers to earn real money selling carbon offsets. Clean energy and climate change legislation would establish a carbon offsets market that would allow farmers to create and sell carbon offsets to polluting entities in lieu of reductions by polluters. This would reduce the cost of emissions reductions for polluters. Farmers would be paid and rewarded for their longstanding carbon sequestration and land stewardship efforts. The Energy Information Administration has estimated the value of agricultural offsets to be close to $24 billion annually.

USDA has the lead. House bill provisions shift oversight of the offsets program from EPA to USDA. The legislation would create a Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Sequestration Advisory Committee that consists of nine individuals, plus a chairperson and vice chairperson appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture. USDA’s expertise and presence in nearly every state should assist in the development of measurement methodologies to determine scientifically rigorous high-quality offsets.

The House bill recommends a minimum and wide ranging list of practices eligible for offsets, including altered tillage practices, reduction in carbon emissions from organic soils, winter cover cropping, continuous cropping and other means to increase biomass returned to soil, and reduction in nitrogen fertilizer use or increase in nitrogen use efficiency.

Clean energy investment with facilities sited in rural America. A U.S. market-based global warming pollution reduction plan will drive demand for renewable energy in rural America. Renewable electricity standards in legislation require retail electricity suppliers to generate a percentage of their electricity from renewable resources.

Farmers would become both the direct providers of renewable energy and the beneficiaries of our economy’s low-carbon transformation as an increasing number of wind, solar, sustainable biomass, methane capture, and other energy facilities—and the jobs that accompany them—are sited in rural America.

The Department of Energy estimates that if 5 percent of the nation’s energy comes from wind power by 2020, rural America could see $60 billion in capital investment. Leasing land for a single utility-scale wind turbine could provide a farmer with about $3,000 a year in income. Farmers and rural landowners would derive $1.2 billion in new income and see 80,000 new jobs created over the next two decades.

Investment in clean fuels of the future, produced by American farms. The current renewable fuels standard establishes ambitious targets and strives to produce advanced biofuels that deliver measurable lifecycle greenhouse gas reductions, minimize the use of food-based feed stocks, and adhere to certifiable environmental and land use safeguards. Clean energy and climate change legislation works with the RFS to promote advanced biofuels grown and produced in rural America.

House bill provisions suspends the EPA’s life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions attributed to indirect land use changes globally while the National Academy of Sciences reviews the methodologies and scientific basis of indirect land use assessments. It also expands the definition of renewable biomass to include broader availability of woody biomass on federal and non-federal lands.

The RFS has a production target of 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuels by 2022. It provides appropriate flexibility to allow producers to meet the RFS mandate with significant contributions from third generation biofuels without dictating a specific type of biofuel product or technology. The approximately 15 billion gallons of existing and future conventional ethanol production capacity and 1 billion gallons of biodiesel would be exempt from greenhouse gas reduction targets.

This piece originally appeared on Climate Progress

Related posts:

IPCC Chief: Benefits of Tackling Climate Change Will Balance Cost of Action

The Waxman-Markey Bill: A Good Start Or A Non-Starter?

Waxman-Markey Passes the House

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Joe Romm in Food and Farming at 3:45 PM)

USDA: Economic Benefits Of Climate Bill For Farmers ‘Easily Trump’ The Costs

Joe Romm — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 23:45:59 +0000

Given the importance of the agricultural sector to climate action, I’m going to repost both a Wonk Room piece by Brad Johnson and an analysis by Jake Caldwell, Director of Policy for Agriculture, Trade & Energy at American Progress.

In testimony before the Senate Agriculture Committee today, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack debunked conservative fearmongering of the cost of cap-and-trade legislation on American farmers. Right-wing organizations from the Heritage Foundation to the American Farm Bureau have presented flawed analyses of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) to claim that a cap on global warming pollution would lead to a “permanent drought season” for the agricultural sector. At the request of Republican Senators Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Mike Johanns (R-NE), the U.S. Department of Agriculture conducted their own analysis of the clean energy legislation. As Vilsack testified, the USDA found that “the economic benefits to agriculture from cap and trade legislation will likely outweigh the costs”:

HR 2454’s creation of an offset market will create opportunities for the agricultural sector. In particular, our analysis indicates that annual net returns to farmers range from about $1 billion per year in 2015-20 to almost $15-20 billion in 2040-50, not accounting for the costs of implementing offset practices.

So, let me be clear about the implications of this analysis. In the short term, the economic benefits to agriculture from cap and trade legislation will likely outweigh the costs. In the long term, the economic benefits from offsets markets easily trump increased input costs from cap and trade legislation. Let me also note that we believe these figures are conservative because we aren’t able to model the types of technological change that are very likely to help farmers produce more crops and livestock with fewer inputs.

This analysis comports with the findings of the Brookings Institution, which found that a cap-and-trade system without an offset program would have little economic impact on the agricultural sector. Furthermore, not only does the USDA analysis not take into account the rewards of technology innovation, demand for biofuels, or opportunities for wind farms, it fails to account for the costs of inaction. Global warming has already hit American farmers hard, leading to reduced crop yields from droughts, floods, extreme storms, heat waves, seasonal shifts, and increased pestilence. In coming years, these disasters for farmers are expected to increase dramatically if no action is taken to address global warming.

The reality is that Waxman-Markey is both necessary for the survival of American farmers and an economic boon. The real debate Washington should be having is whether the concessions made on behalf of existing industrial agricultural giants weaken that opportunity — not only for the American public at large, but for the farmers themselves.

The USDA Office of the Chief Economist has released its analysis:

The House climate bill will likely have small but significant effects on crop and livestock producers. Over the short run, impacts are largely negligible due to the EITE provisions of the bill which would shield producers from the effects of higher natural gas prices on fertilizer prices. After 2025, however, fertilizer prices would likely increase. While energy-intensive crops will be most affected, the legislation also provides significant opportunities to offset increased costs through carbon sequestration activities. Our analysis does not assess the change in farm income due to the Renewable Electricity Standard provisions in HR 2454. Greater demand for renewable electricity will put upward pressure on the demand for biomass and provide an added source of farm income.

[Here is Caldwell's piece.]

Today the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture conducts a welcome hearing on comprehensive clean energy and climate change legislation. Rural America has a great deal to gain from Senate action on comprehensive clean energy and climate change. It represents an opportunity to raise incomes, create jobs, reduce dependence on foreign oil, stabilize volatile input prices, and reduce the threat posed by extreme weather to rural livelihoods and the nation’s food and energy supplies.

Little or no action is a huge gamble. It places the fate of U.S. agriculture in a byzantine administrative process of federal regulation led by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Clean Air Act.

What’s more, opposition to clean energy and climate change legislation could forever erase any of the benefits secured for farmers in the House version of the legislation. Senate action on clean energy and climate change legislation is necessary in order to ensure the benefits of these provisions survive and are delivered to rural America.

And inaction on clean energy and global warming represents ongoing adherence to a status quo of roller coaster energy prices, extreme weather events, and increasing dependence on disaster assistance.

The key benefits and gains for rural America secured in the House bill include:

Cap-and-trade exemptions for agriculture and forestry. The agricultural and forestry sectors are fully exempt from carbon emissions caps under the House and Senate climate legislation’s longstanding cap-and-trade approach. This means that these industries do not have to buy pollution allowances.

Incentives for farms and forests to sequester more global warming pollution. U.S. agricultural and forest lands sequester 246 million metric tons of carbon annually, absorbing 13 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Appropriate incentives could enable these lands to ultimately absorb 50 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Clean energy and climate change legislation promotes U.S. agricultural lands as a “carbon sink” by encouraging a whole range of good practices that many farmers are already doing, including: modest tillage practices, tree and perennial planting, erosion prevention, rotational grazing, and winter cover cropping.

The opportunity for farmers to earn real money selling carbon offsets. Clean energy and climate change legislation would establish a carbon offsets market that would allow farmers to create and sell carbon offsets to polluting entities in lieu of reductions by polluters. This would reduce the cost of emissions reductions for polluters. Farmers would be paid and rewarded for their longstanding carbon sequestration and land stewardship efforts. The Energy Information Administration has estimated the value of agricultural offsets to be close to $24 billion annually.

USDA has the lead. House bill provisions shift oversight of the offsets program from EPA to USDA. The legislation would create a Greenhouse Gas Reduction and Sequestration Advisory Committee that consists of nine individuals, plus a chairperson and vice chairperson appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture. USDA’s expertise and presence in nearly every state should assist in the development of measurement methodologies to determine scientifically rigorous high-quality offsets.

The House bill recommends a minimum and wide ranging list of practices eligible for offsets, including altered tillage practices, reduction in carbon emissions from organic soils, winter cover cropping, continuous cropping and other means to increase biomass returned to soil, and reduction in nitrogen fertilizer use or increase in nitrogen use efficiency.

Clean energy investment with facilities sited in rural America. A U.S. market-based global warming pollution reduction plan will drive demand for renewable energy in rural America. Renewable electricity standards in legislation require retail electricity suppliers to generate a percentage of their electricity from renewable resources.

Farmers would become both the direct providers of renewable energy and the beneficiaries of our economy’s low-carbon transformation as an increasing number of wind, solar, sustainable biomass, methane capture, and other energy facilities—and the jobs that accompany them—are sited in rural America.

The Department of Energy estimates that if 5 percent of the nation’s energy comes from wind power by 2020, rural America could see $60 billion in capital investment. Leasing land for a single utility-scale wind turbine could provide a farmer with about $3,000 a year in income. Farmers and rural landowners would derive $1.2 billion in new income and see 80,000 new jobs created over the next two decades.

Investment in clean fuels of the future, produced by American farms. The current renewable fuels standard establishes ambitious targets and strives to produce advanced biofuels that deliver measurable lifecycle greenhouse gas reductions, minimize the use of food-based feed stocks, and adhere to certifiable environmental and land use safeguards. Clean energy and climate change legislation works with the RFS to promote advanced biofuels grown and produced in rural America.

House bill provisions suspends the EPA’s life cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions attributed to indirect land use changes globally while the National Academy of Sciences reviews the methodologies and scientific basis of indirect land use assessments. It also expands the definition of renewable biomass to include broader availability of woody biomass on federal and non-federal lands.

The RFS has a production target of 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuels by 2022. It provides appropriate flexibility to allow producers to meet the RFS mandate with significant contributions from third generation biofuels without dictating a specific type of biofuel product or technology. The approximately 15 billion gallons of existing and future conventional ethanol production capacity and 1 billion gallons of biodiesel would be exempt from greenhouse gas reduction targets.

This piece originally appeared on Climate Progress

Related posts:

IPCC Chief: Benefits of Tackling Climate Change Will Balance Cost of Action

The Waxman-Markey Bill: A Good Start Or A Non-Starter?

Waxman-Markey Passes the House

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Joe Romm in Food and Farming at 3:45 PM)

Geoff Lawton: Developing a Permaculture Master Plan

WorldChanging Team — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 16:19:00 +0000

Nominated by Louis Fox

I think Permaculturist Geoff Lawton is doing some of the best work in the world. My pick is him and his PRI Training Center: it's being developed to help implement his permaculture master plan.

This piece is part of Worldchanging's Attention Philanthropy campaign. All week long, the Worldchanging Network will be delivering "attention grants" to worthy projects, individuals, resources and more. You can learn more about these gifts of notice and find other entries by clicking here.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Food and Farming at 8:19 AM)

People’s Grocery: Building Food Security From Within

WorldChanging Team — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:10:00 +0000

Nominated by Gregory Dicum

When everyone's talking local food systems, here are some folks who have actually built one, and in a seriously disadvantaged city to boot. They've been at it for seven years now -- it takes time for food, and young minds, to grow -- and now they are on the cusp of closing the food loop in West Oakland by opening a permanent store to complement their mobile market, urban farms, and job training programs. People's Grocery is not just a brilliant idea; it's a brilliant idea that is being executed well, by people who give it the time it needs to root in the community. If you haven't heard of them, it's just that they are too busy getting their hands dirty to spend much time promoting themselves.

Read more about their work here and here.

Nominator Gregory Dicum is a freelance writer and author based in San Francisco who writes about travel, food, and the natural world.

This piece is part of Worldchanging's Attention Philanthropy campaign. All week long, the Worldchanging Network will be delivering "attention grants" to worthy projects, individuals, resources and more. You can learn more about these gifts of notice and find other entries by clicking here.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Food and Farming at 7:10 AM)

People’s Grocery: Building Food Security From Within

WorldChanging Team — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:10:00 +0000

Nominated by Gregory Dicum

When everyone's talking local food systems, here are some folks who have actually built one, and in a seriously disadvantaged city to boot. They've been at it for seven years now -- it takes time for food, and young minds, to grow -- and now they are on the cusp of closing the food loop in West Oakland by opening a permanent store to complement their mobile market, urban farms, and job training programs. People's Grocery is not just a brilliant idea; it's a brilliant idea that is being executed well, by people who give it the time it needs to root in the community. If you haven't heard of them, it's just that they are too busy getting their hands dirty to spend much time promoting themselves.

Read more about their work here and here.

Nominator Gregory Dicum is a freelance writer and author based in San Francisco who writes about travel, food, and the natural world.

This piece is part of Worldchanging's Attention Philanthropy campaign. All week long, the Worldchanging Network will be delivering "attention grants" to worthy projects, individuals, resources and more. You can learn more about these gifts of notice and find other entries by clicking here.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Food and Farming at 7:10 AM)

Growfood.org: Networking a 21st Century Food System

WorldChanging Team — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:25:07 +0000

Nominated by Liz Kirkham

Growfood.org connects a new generation with the small farm experience and facilitates apprenticeships for aspiring farmers.

In 2001, when they were 20 years old, Ethan Schaffer (Brower Youth Award Winner, 2002) and Sarita Role Schaffer (Fulbright Scholar, 2007-8) founded GrowFood.org as a nonprofit organization that connects people with organic farmers, urban gardeners, green builders, renewable energy experts, policy crafters, and organizations that practice and teach what others only preach.

Eight years later, GrowFood.org is more than a mere expert-novice matchmaking site. It has become an online hub for people who want to get their hands dirty building a healthier food system and a greener economy. More than 17,000 people from all 50 states and 21 Latin American countries now use the site to find organic farms and urban gardens to work and learn on, and to build coalitions, pool resources, and launch new sustainable enterprises.

Currently GrowFood.org is in the process of improving and relaunching its website to fill the growing demand and need for learning practical skills in sustainable farming and living.

This piece is part of Worldchanging's Attention Philanthropy campaign. All week long, the Worldchanging Network will be delivering "attention grants" to worthy projects, individuals, resources and more. You can learn more about these gifts of notice and find other entries by clicking here.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Food and Farming at 7:25 AM)

Quick question: how to measure virtual calories?

Alex Steffen — Sat, 16 May 2009 18:37:22 +0000

I have a question. Some activists frequently make the point that certain diets are not only more calorie rich than others, but take more food calories to produce (meat-heavy diets, for instance, often demand many times the calories in grain as a feed for livestock as the number of calories they produce in meat, we hear). We might, taking a cue from virtual water, think of these as virtual calories.

Does anyone know how this is measured? Better yet, does anyone know a simple, yet evidence-based resource for exploring the virtual calories embedded in different foods? (And is there an existing term for what I'm calling virtual calories?)

Thanks!

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Alex Steffen in Food and Farming at 10:37 AM)

Quick question: how to measure virtual calories?

Alex Steffen — Sat, 16 May 2009 18:37:22 +0000

I have a question. Some activists frequently make the point that certain diets are not only more calorie rich than others, but take more food calories to produce (meat-heavy diets, for instance, often demand many times the calories in grain as a feed for livestock as the number of calories they produce in meat, we hear). We might, taking a cue from virtual water, think of these as virtual calories.

Does anyone know how this is measured? Better yet, does anyone know a simple, yet evidence-based resource for exploring the virtual calories embedded in different foods? (And is there an existing term for what I'm calling virtual calories?)

Thanks!

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Alex Steffen in Food and Farming at 10:37 AM)

Fresh From…the City

WorldChanging Team — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:46:13 +0000

Citizens and local policymakers join up to get fresh foods to schools and neighborhoods.

by Mark Winne

Cleveland city councilor Joe Cimperman at the construction of Wonder City Farm, one of the city’s many “asphalt” vegetable gardens.
Photo courtesy of New Agrarian Center

The Albuquerque high school auditorium was nearly full. On stage sat a dozen New Mexico state officials, physicians, and other health professionals, listening intently to a parade of parents, teachers, civic leaders, and even the occasional student—all speaking in favor of a proposal to ban sugary soft drinks and to require the state’s public schools to offer healthier food.
Then it was the other side’s turn. Standing in a carefully coifed cluster, immaculately attired and bristling with confidence, America’s beverage industry representatives made their case for the retention of soda in New Mexico’s public schools. Each of the speakers—none of whom were state residents—announced their names, punctuated with an alphabet soup of credentials that spanned the range of most known health disciplines. They argued that soft drinks were not as unhealthy as people thought, that the real culprit in America’s obesity crisis wasn’t too many calories but too little exercise, and that it was simply not right to deprive school children of the nation’s iconic soda brands.
These arguments were as disingenuous as the case for healthy school food was compelling. But public institutions don’t change easily, and corporations don’t give up millions of dollars without a fight. A back room deal between state officials and the beverage industry nearly scuttled the proposed reforms. But the light of day was too bright, and the voice of citizens too strong. Today, the cafeterias of New Mexico’s public schools no longer sell Pepsi or Coke. In their place, students find apples, chiles, and other locally grown fruits and vegetables.
The victory was by no means inevitable. The state’s nutrition reforms were the direct result of work done by the New Mexico Food and Agriculture Policy Council, an organized group of farmers, nutritionists, educators, activists, and others on a mission for healthier food.

But how do you start up agriculture in the middle of a city, and on a scale that will make a difference?

From vacant city lot to fresh food: the making of Cleveland’s Neighbors in Family Practice Farm.
Photos courtesy of New Agrarian Center

Big decisions about food, nutrition, and agriculture used to be the purview of a small cadre of agribusiness corporations and political heavy-hitters. But more and more, people are realizing that decisions that affect their food and health are too important to leave in the hands of others. Around the country citizens are holding their elected officials accountable for junk food in schools, food insecurity in poor neighborhoods, and the future of agriculture through groups called “food policy councils” (FPCs).
The FPC movement started more than 25 years ago in Knoxville, Tennessee, and now there are about 100 councils in North America. The councils come in many shapes and sizes—some organized by citizens, some established formally by an ordinance, state statute, or executive order. And increasingly, these food policy councils are publicly asserting that the nation’s food system must serve a triple bottom line—one that is good for producers, the environment, and all consumers, including low-income households.
Food Democracy at Work
Agitated chatter spilled out of the meeting room at the Boulder County Natural Resources building in Colorado as the 12 members of the newly appointed Boulder County Food and Agriculture Policy Council gathered over beer and pizza (both made locally) and put finishing touches on a strategic plan to boost local food production and distribution.
The discussion grew tense when one member protested that her values were not reflected in the plan’s current draft. Cindy Torres, the council chair, called a time-out. It wasn’t about whether the member’s perception was right or wrong. Food policy councils are committed to listening to everyone’s ideas. As discussion resumed, the reluctant member calmed, put aside her doubts, and accepted compromise language.
“We want everyone to know they have a voice in our food system,” says Torres. Such an inclusive process may take longer. Food policy councils are “like being in a big family,” she says. “All those people aren’t going away, so you better learn to deal with them.”
But Torres insists the payoff can be enormous. “At first we had only a collection of special interests. But now we have a vision that everyone can share and work for,” she says. “Yes, we focus on environmental sustainability, but in order for our work to have a long-term impact, we must also work on social sustainability.”
It’s that proximity to local voices that gives food policy councils their strength. At the federal level, where Congress and the administration make policies like the Farm Bill, the average citizen’s voice can get lost. But when food policy councils confront a local school board or state legislature, elected officials must listen and work with them.
This strategy has been successful in New Mexico, where the council has worked with public and private partners to advocate successfully for increased state funding for farmers markets and the Farmers Market Nutrition Program.
Food policy councils’ commitment to building a “big tent,” open to many interests, is starting to pay off in other communities as well. Cleveland, for example, has “brought together an amazing group of food system stakeholders who have a vision for a just and sustainable local food system,” according to Jennifer Schofield, cofounder of the Cleveland Cuyahoga County Food Policy Council.
Like many so-called rust-belt cities, Cleveland has lost a staggering number of residents and supermarkets, leaving citizens stranded amid large tracts of vacant land with no place to shop. But Schofield saw vacant lots as future mini-farms, and the remaining corner stores as potential outlets for healthy food, not just candy, tobacco, and lottery tickets. “Anybody in their right mind knows that Cleveland’s economic future isn’t with the Fortune 500. We need to stimulate small, local businesses like food and gardening.”
But how do you start up agriculture in the middle of a city, and on a scale that will make a difference?
The food policy council tackled that question by seeking citywide policies that could open possibilities for urban farming. They found a champion in City Councilor Joe Cimperman, a 10-year veteran of Cleveland’s 13th Ward.
“Urban farming can be transformative in terms of the economy, nutrition, health, and public safety,” Cimperman says. “Our goal is to make Cleveland a national leader in the local food economy.” He and the FPC have secured a zoning change that permits community gardening. They are now working on new zoning to create larger plots, one-acre or more, and allow chicken-raising and beekeeping.
Similar approaches have succeeded in Portland, Oregon, where the 15-member Portland-Multnomah Food Policy Council has encouraged the city to open up more land for community gardens through their “Diggable City” project, which has turned the public spotlight on the need for more urban plots. Even though 3,000 people currently till the city’s community gardens, there are still 1,000 gardener wannabes on a waiting list.
Portland is also thinking beyond a few garden plots. The council is working with the region’s planning commission to encourage the inclusion of food access, affordable food, and the viability of state agriculture in the region’s five-year comprehensive plan. Should they succeed, it will be the first time any major American city has recognized food and agriculture as key issues in city and regional planning.
Through such collaborations, food policy councils give ordinary people a chance to have a big impact on where their food will come from in the future. According to Pam Roy, co-director of the non-profit Farm to Table, the New Mexico council was created to bring about profound change.
“We could do food projects forever,” she says, “but never get the kind of far-reaching results that we get by tackling state policy.”
As new voices speak out through the FPCs, there’s hope that food and agriculture decisions will start delivering what people really need—healthy, affordable, sustainable food.
Mark Winne wrote this article as part of Food for Everyone, the Spring 2009 issue of YES! Magazine. Mark is cofounder of the City of Hartford Food Policy Commission, the Connecticut Food Policy Council, End Hunger Connecticut!, and the national Community Food Security Coalition, and author of Closing the Food Gap: Resetting the Table in the Land of Plenty (Beacon, 2008).
Interested?
Learn how to get involved in Food Policy Councils at www.yesmagazine.org/fpc

This article was republished, with permission, from Yes! Magazine

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Food and Farming at 11:46 AM)

Fresh From…the City

WorldChanging Team — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:46:13 +0000

Citizens and local policymakers join up to get fresh foods to schools and neighborhoods.

by Mark Winne

Cleveland city councilor Joe Cimperman at the construction of Wonder City Farm, one of the city’s many “asphalt” vegetable gardens.
Photo courtesy of New Agrarian Center

The Albuquerque high school auditorium was nearly full. On stage sat a dozen New Mexico state officials, physicians, and other health professionals, listening intently to a parade of parents, teachers, civic leaders, and even the occasional student—all speaking in favor of a proposal to ban sugary soft drinks and to require the state’s public schools to offer healthier food.
Then it was the other side’s turn. Standing in a carefully coifed cluster, immaculately attired and bristling with confidence, America’s beverage industry representatives made their case for the retention of soda in New Mexico’s public schools. Each of the speakers—none of whom were state residents—announced their names, punctuated with an alphabet soup of credentials that spanned the range of most known health disciplines. They argued that soft drinks were not as unhealthy as people thought, that the real culprit in America’s obesity crisis wasn’t too many calories but too little exercise, and that it was simply not right to deprive school children of the nation’s iconic soda brands.
These arguments were as disingenuous as the case for healthy school food was compelling. But public institutions don’t change easily, and corporations don’t give up millions of dollars without a fight. A back room deal between state officials and the beverage industry nearly scuttled the proposed reforms. But the light of day was too bright, and the voice of citizens too strong. Today, the cafeterias of New Mexico’s public schools no longer sell Pepsi or Coke. In their place, students find apples, chiles, and other locally grown fruits and vegetables.
The victory was by no means inevitable. The state’s nutrition reforms were the direct result of work done by the New Mexico Food and Agriculture Policy Council, an organized group of farmers, nutritionists, educators, activists, and others on a mission for healthier food.

But how do you start up agriculture in the middle of a city, and on a scale that will make a difference?

From vacant city lot to fresh food: the making of Cleveland’s Neighbors in Family Practice Farm.
Photos courtesy of New Agrarian Center

Big decisions about food, nutrition, and agriculture used to be the purview of a small cadre of agribusiness corporations and political heavy-hitters. But more and more, people are realizing that decisions that affect their food and health are too important to leave in the hands of others. Around the country citizens are holding their elected officials accountable for junk food in schools, food insecurity in poor neighborhoods, and the future of agriculture through groups called “food policy councils” (FPCs).
The FPC movement started more than 25 years ago in Knoxville, Tennessee, and now there are about 100 councils in North America. The councils come in many shapes and sizes—some organized by citizens, some established formally by an ordinance, state statute, or executive order. And increasingly, these food policy councils are publicly asserting that the nation’s food system must serve a triple bottom line—one that is good for producers, the environment, and all consumers, including low-income households.
Food Democracy at Work
Agitated chatter spilled out of the meeting room at the Boulder County Natural Resources building in Colorado as the 12 members of the newly appointed Boulder County Food and Agriculture Policy Council gathered over beer and pizza (both made locally) and put finishing touches on a strategic plan to boost local food production and distribution.
The discussion grew tense when one member protested that her values were not reflected in the plan’s current draft. Cindy Torres, the council chair, called a time-out. It wasn’t about whether the member’s perception was right or wrong. Food policy councils are committed to listening to everyone’s ideas. As discussion resumed, the reluctant member calmed, put aside her doubts, and accepted compromise language.
“We want everyone to know they have a voice in our food system,” says Torres. Such an inclusive process may take longer. Food policy councils are “like being in a big family,” she says. “All those people aren’t going away, so you better learn to deal with them.”
But Torres insists the payoff can be enormous. “At first we had only a collection of special interests. But now we have a vision that everyone can share and work for,” she says. “Yes, we focus on environmental sustainability, but in order for our work to have a long-term impact, we must also work on social sustainability.”
It’s that proximity to local voices that gives food policy councils their strength. At the federal level, where Congress and the administration make policies like the Farm Bill, the average citizen’s voice can get lost. But when food policy councils confront a local school board or state legislature, elected officials must listen and work with them.
This strategy has been successful in New Mexico, where the council has worked with public and private partners to advocate successfully for increased state funding for farmers markets and the Farmers Market Nutrition Program.
Food policy councils’ commitment to building a “big tent,” open to many interests, is starting to pay off in other communities as well. Cleveland, for example, has “brought together an amazing group of food system stakeholders who have a vision for a just and sustainable local food system,” according to Jennifer Schofield, cofounder of the Cleveland Cuyahoga County Food Policy Council.
Like many so-called rust-belt cities, Cleveland has lost a staggering number of residents and supermarkets, leaving citizens stranded amid large tracts of vacant land with no place to shop. But Schofield saw vacant lots as future mini-farms, and the remaining corner stores as potential outlets for healthy food, not just candy, tobacco, and lottery tickets. “Anybody in their right mind knows that Cleveland’s economic future isn’t with the Fortune 500. We need to stimulate small, local businesses like food and gardening.”
But how do you start up agriculture in the middle of a city, and on a scale that will make a difference?
The food policy council tackled that question by seeking citywide policies that could open possibilities for urban farming. They found a champion in City Councilor Joe Cimperman, a 10-year veteran of Cleveland’s 13th Ward.
“Urban farming can be transformative in terms of the economy, nutrition, health, and public safety,” Cimperman says. “Our goal is to make Cleveland a national leader in the local food economy.” He and the FPC have secured a zoning change that permits community gardening. They are now working on new zoning to create larger plots, one-acre or more, and allow chicken-raising and beekeeping.
Similar approaches have succeeded in Portland, Oregon, where the 15-member Portland-Multnomah Food Policy Council has encouraged the city to open up more land for community gardens through their “Diggable City” project, which has turned the public spotlight on the need for more urban plots. Even though 3,000 people currently till the city’s community gardens, there are still 1,000 gardener wannabes on a waiting list.
Portland is also thinking beyond a few garden plots. The council is working with the region’s planning commission to encourage the inclusion of food access, affordable food, and the viability of state agriculture in the region’s five-year comprehensive plan. Should they succeed, it will be the first time any major American city has recognized food and agriculture as key issues in city and regional planning.
Through such collaborations, food policy councils give ordinary people a chance to have a big impact on where their food will come from in the future. According to Pam Roy, co-director of the non-profit Farm to Table, the New Mexico council was created to bring about profound change.
“We could do food projects forever,” she says, “but never get the kind of far-reaching results that we get by tackling state policy.”
As new voices speak out through the FPCs, there’s hope that food and agriculture decisions will start delivering what people really need—healthy, affordable, sustainable food.
Mark Winne wrote this article as part of Food for Everyone, the Spring 2009 issue of YES! Magazine. Mark is cofounder of the City of Hartford Food Policy Commission, the Connecticut Food Policy Council, End Hunger Connecticut!, and the national Community Food Security Coalition, and author of Closing the Food Gap: Resetting the Table in the Land of Plenty (Beacon, 2008).
Interested?
Learn how to get involved in Food Policy Councils by clicking here.

This article was republished, with permission, from Yes! Magazine

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Food and Farming at 11:46 AM)

The Meal Less Traveled?

WorldChanging Team — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:45:41 +0000

By Benita Beamon

What you eat may be more important than where it came from.

There may be many reasons to eat locally: supporting your local economy, ensuring food freshness, curbing sprawl, or reducing unnecessary energy use. One of the most pervasive arguments in favor of the local food movement has been to reduce or eliminate the environmental impacts of long-haul food shipments. But Carnegie-Mellon researchers Christopher L. Weber and H. Scott Matthews suggest that, at least from a greenhouse gas (GHG) perspective, food miles may not be as important as you may think.
In their recent article entitled “Food Miles and the Relative Climate Impacts of Food Choices in the United States,” appearing in Environmental Science and Technology, Weber and Matthews conclude that “the distance that food travels only accounts for around 11 percent of the average American household's food-related GHG emissions.” According to the authors, the more important factor in food-related GHG emissions is the amount of resources required to produce it.
The authors show that for the average U.S. household, “shifting less than 1 day per week’s consumption of red meat and/or dairy to other protein sources or a vegetable-based diet could have the same climate impact as buying all household food from local providers." On average, they find, red meat produces more GHGs than any other form of food. So, while there are many reasons to support our local farms, there are also strong greenhouse gas reasons to be sure we eat our veggies, no matter where they came from.

This article originally appeared in Sightline Institutes blog, The Daily Score.
Photo credit: flickr/The Wandering Angel, Creative Commons License.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by WorldChanging Team in Food and Farming at 1:45 PM)

U.S. Secretary Alludes to Major Changes for Nation’s Agricultural System

Sarah Kuck — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 23:57:50 +0000

In less than five minutes, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack speeds through multiple ideas that could radically change the way America farms, from decreasing government subsidies, to encouraging farmers to use and create renewable energy. Vilsack tells Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep that in the near future, farmers will have new opportunities to make money helping the country combat global warming through conservation techniques and greenhouse gas mitigation.

Listen here

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Sarah Kuck in Food and Farming at 3:57 PM)

Local Agriculture: Healthy on its Own Terms

Julia Levitt — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 21:36:44 +0000

Shannon Hayes, whose family operates a small farm, wrote an op-ed in yesterday's New York Times describing how the National Animal Identification System, the controversial practice of tagging livestock to help control the spread of disease will hurt local agriculture and reward factory farmers:

So who would gain if the identification system eventually becomes mandatory, as the Agriculture Department has hoped? It would help exporters by soothing the fears of foreign consumers who have shunned American beef. Other beneficiaries would include manufacturers of animal tracking systems that stand to garner hefty profits for tracking the hundreds of millions of this country’s farm animals. It would also give industrial agriculture a stamp of approval despite its use of antibiotics, confinement and unnatural feeding practices that increase the threat of disease.

At the same time, the system would hurt small pasture-based livestock farms like my family’s, even though our grazing practices and natural farming methods help thwart the spread of illnesses. And when small farms are full participants in a local food system, tracking a diseased animal doesn’t require an exorbitantly expensive national database.

Cheaper and more effective than an identification system would be a nationwide effort to train farmers and veterinarians about proper management, bio-security practices and disease recognition. But best of all would be prevention. To heighten our food security, we should limit industrial agriculture and stimulate the growth of small farms and backyard food production around the country.

This essay reminds me of a point made often and eloquently by Michael Pollan: that by continuously designing new fixes into a broken system, we just move it farther and farther away from operating the efficient way that nature intended.

Photo credit: Josh Anderson for the New York Times.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Julia Levitt in Food and Farming at 1:36 PM)

Food Deserts and Delivery: Discussions from the Pacific Northwest

Eric De Place — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 01:01:59 +0000

Can Amazon's grocery service help poor neighborhoods?

"Food deserts" are places in urban areas where people have limited access to healthy, fresh, and reasonably-priced food. In Portland, Ore., and Seattle, Wash., food deserts tend to be in low-income neighborhoods or suburbs where many residents rely on transit service or foot-power. (Think parts of northeast Portland or Seattle's South Park, for example.)

Without ready access to decent grocery stores, residents end up over-spending or buying food with limited nutritional value or both. Fresh fruits and vegetables -- so important for a healthy diet -- are in short supply, if they exist at all. And you can forget about local and organic food. So food deserts can result in poor health, tight budgets for those who can least afford it, or long cumbersome bus trips to other neighborhoods. Worse, the problem of grocery access is most severe for the elderly, single parents, and the disabled. It's not just an urban land use issue: it's a problem with profound social justice implications.

To date, there haven't been many satisfactory solutions. It's tough to get grocers to locate to low-income neighborhoods for basic economic reasons. Compounding matters, perverse zoning laws and misguided advocacy often restrict or prevent the large-scale commercial development grocery stores look for. In recent years, some neighborhood activists have championed weekly farmer's markets, backyard gardens, or city "pea patches." For all the merit these local food ideas have, they're patchwork solutions that can't provide year-round reliable groceries to people with limited time and income. But there may yet be a solution at hand.

In a previous post on this subject, frequent commenter Matt the Engineer hit on an idea that I think is sheer genius. Why not take advantage of the grocery delivery services that are popping up all over? The Northwest is rich with Community Supported Agriculture programs that provide weekly delivery of seasonal local food. Larger in scale is British Columbia-based Spud (nee Pioneer Organics), a delivery service that specializes in both local and organic food, serves Portland and Seattle, as well as large swaths of territory in and around Vancouver and Victoria. Spud's current clientele is largely well-heeled, but there are more quotidian grocery delivery services too, including Safeway. Even Amazon is getting into the game with AmazonFresh, currently serving only a handful of Seattle-area zip codes but expanding quickly.

So we've got low-income neighborhoods without access to healthy affordable food. And we've got grocery delivery trucks rumbling past on their way to tonier precincts. Why can't we connect the dots?

The idea is not, as you may expect, for vulnerable low-income populations to buy laptops, get high-speed wifi, and order heathful groceries. Even if the tools of the Internet Age were widely available and affordable -- and they're not yet -- they wouldn't be of much use to the elderly, immigrants with limited English, or folks who don't have a credit card or bank account. But there's no good reason why policymakers can't intervene.

It's easy to imagine residents of low-income neighborhoods getting grocery delivery service in some lower-tech fashion. Social workers, community centers, or food banks could provide quick checklists for weekly delivery of free (or subsidized) fresh produce. Perhaps the efforts would be funded with public money or by nonprofit food banks. Or perhaps Amazon or Safeway would see low-income delivery service as an opportunity for good corporate citizenship. It needn't start all at once, but one can imagine Seattle-based Amazon adding a low-income zip code next and then reaching out to community service agencies to find ways to deliver fresh food cheaply to those who really need it.

Of course, the best long-term solution to food deserts may be to turn them green. We should be promoting compact walkable communities that support local businesses and grocers -- and especially so in low-income areas. Having ready access to affordable healthy food shouldn't be a luxury of the upper classes, it should be a basic building block of all city neighborhoods.

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Eric De Place in Food and Farming at 5:01 PM)

Finding Out Where Your Food’s From: The Food Map

Sarah Kuck — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:33:54 +0000

Image by Il Primo Uomo via Flickr
For those of us participating in the global economy, going to the grocery store is an international experience -- mangoes from Chile, a box of macaroni and cheese from Wisconsin, cocoa beans from Africa.
Food products travel thousands of miles just to reach the store shelves every day, but how often do we stop to think about this distance or its repercussions? A project-in-the-works called The Food Map is in the very early stages of bringing awareness to the issue of food miles and sustainability.

Two graduate students at the University of Wisconsin - Madison recently created the project as a way to "shed some light on the U.S. food network." Although still in its super-beta form (currently, you can use it to see how far different brands of mac and cheese have traveled to get to from the factory to your kitchen), the Food Map idea is visionary in is mission to create awareness and interest in knowing where our food has been.

Kai Johnson, one of the Food Map's creators, says that the idea for the Food Map was spurred by the love of food and the quest for knowledge. He hopes that this project will create an awareness that will change behaviors within the food system:

We believe that Awareness is absolutely paramount when you try to address any issue. However, this awareness is many times hard to come by, and most people do not have the time to investigate these things sufficiently to become educated consumers. Additionally, there are billions of dollars spent annually on advertisements that aim to keep our views focused on the surface and not dig deeper into the more interconnected reality. With The Food Map, we hope that we can make more people aware of the intricate and extensive interconnections of our current world by showing them a bit more about where their food has been. Potentially, this could be adapted to a number of other sectors of the economy: clothes, computers, cars, etc etc. Or also turned into a more wiki-style user produced content site. The more we know, the better informed we are in making decisions.

Creating awareness about the benefits of eating locally is not easy, especially when up against megaphone-style messaging from big name companies. But having a powerful visual, like the distractingly entertaining Food Map, and readily accessible information on the Internet, just might help the creators of this project achieve their mission of making the food network visible.

For more on the food system and food miles, see our archives:

Food Miles: Green Good Sense, Ill-Considered Hype, or Naked Protectionism?

Eating Really Local

Wrapping Our Heads Around the Global Food System

Help us change the world - DONATE NOW!

(Posted by Sarah Kuck in Food and Farming at 2:33 PM)