Climate Information Applications for Resilience: (uhhh, of what? Hmmm)

Opening Wedge or Just Plain Sledge?(trick title…) – modified for posting. See “notes” for

references and additional comments.

John D. Wiener, J.D., Ph.D.University of Colorado

<www.colorado.edu/ibs/eb/wiener/>Institute of Behavioral Science, Research Program on Environment and Society

And Research Applications LaboratoryNational Center for Atmospheric Research

NOT representing any institutionThanks to NOAA for past funding and good works

John.Wiener@Colorado.Edu Note: This will attempt to avoid duplication of excellent materials already presented at

CPASW; and previous CPASW presentations on agriculture desires for forecasts, etc.

AGRICULTURE IS THE BIG LAND AND WATER USE!!! AND THE EXTENSIVE SOURCE OF EXTERNALITIES THOUGH NOT THE ONLY SOURCE

EVERY OTHER RESOURCEMANAGEMENT ISSUE INTERACTSWITH LAND AND WATER USE --- THIS IS THE SUBSTRATE FOR THEHYBRID ECOLOGY (see AWRA WaterResources Impact Jun 2008 intro)

Nobody in the driver’s seat… this is “development” of some of the best farm land in the US

Conclusions -- Could you please state that question in the form of an answer? The VIEW FROM OUTSIDE…

• Vulnerability to loss of financial, social, and human capital in small and mid-scale agriculture is already driving local stewards --“family farms”-- extinct

• Vulnerability of soils to increased variability and extremes, including precipitation intensity, is worse with monoculture on high-input, high-yield, high-externality, high-risk treadmill, and is among threats to sustainability of land and water quality

• The consumer preference and WTP for “local,” not just and sometimes instead of “organic” is a directional guide, but undertake transition now! Skip “doing it the hard way” because that may greatly increases losses

Conclusions 2• The best science (yours!) is ENABLING ADDICTION

to go farther away from resilience and durability• Conceptual delusions dating to 1066 and the 17th

and 18th Century support misframing the issues• Wrong question: how can we maximize output

now, pretending it feeds the hungry billions by working markets, regardless of true costs and outcomes, and destruction of productivity?

• Better: How much can we produce sustainably?• How can we make flows through conventional ag

into regionally and locally closed loops?

Conclusions 3• USDA ARS: Sassenrath, Schneider, Hendrickson, Archer (and some

nut): MANAGING AGRICULTURAL LANDS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY II : LANDSCAPE SCALE KEY… but how?

• Add: E.g.: Water quality linkages: change the flows into and out of the farm into closed loops on local and regional scale

• And: Fragility and Reversibility of Ag Conservation (mostly “rental”) versus off-farm land use changes overwhelming progress: Need the WHOLE SET OF PIECES AT THE TABLE – CLIMATE STIMULUS?

• But, “opening WEDGE” for change? Or SLEDGE to break up the unsustainable system and re-place?

• FOR WHOSE BENEFIT, FOR HOW LONG, SHALL WE USE THE REMAINING RESOURCES?

Conclusions 4• “The Earth Transformed…” – Plato, George Perkins

Marsh 1864, Thomas, ed. 1956, Clark and Munn, eds., 1986, Turner et al. eds. 1990… Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005… “Natural” is no longer on the menu: this is hybrid ecology with humans as super-predator and keystone species.

• We are riding the tiger, and it was very angry before climate change had apparent impacts. Can this last disruption stimulate change?

• Incremental enough? Or too little too late?• Opening wedge? Or sledge hammer?

From R-CALF, August 2010: The Ag Biz

From R-CALF, August 2010

From R-CALF, August 2010

So long, cowboys?

Little folks can still take lots of risks, and they certainly will take the oligopsony dominated prices…

Goodbye local knowledge, and eyes on the ground; hello CAFOs…

BEEF: Top 4 FIRMS = 83.5%(Tyson, Cargill, JBS Swift, National Beef Packing)

PORK: Top 4 FIRMS = Est 66%(Smithfield, Tyson, JBS Swift, Cargill)

BROILERS: Top 4 FIRMS = 58.5%(Pilgrim’s Pride, Tyson, Purdue, Sanderson)

Src: R-CALF, August 2011 Presentation, citingM. Hendrickson and W. Heffernan, U. ofMissouri, Columbia MO., April 2007:http://www.foodcircles.missouri.edu/07contable.pdfchecked February 2011.Note: USDA ERS “coy” on this subject… but Secretary Vilsack was plain-spoken recently (DOA-DOJ August 2010)

BUYER/PROCESSOR/DISTRIBUTOR OLIGOPSONY IN US MEAT:

Speaking of drug and biocide resistance evolving in pests and diseases… the concentration of large numbers of animals of the same breed may be an invitation for accelerating some unpleasant developments

See the largeAssessments,Including theIAASTD, theUSGCRP 2009And the UKForesight report

Agribusiness Is BIG• From High Plains Journal, 31 Jan 2011: Cargill, Inc. said it

will turn over its 64% share in Mosaic Co, the fertilizer maker, to Cargill shareholders and debt holders, in complicated corporate maneuvering to avoid efforts to take Cargill public. The 2/3 of Mosaic is worth “roughly $24.3 billion”…

• Cargill is one of the largest private companies in the world, and “has a wide-ranging business that includes everything from growing and processing crops, to blending and shipping biofuels, to making food products.”

• Cargill Website (www.cargill.com): $107.9 Billion sales in 2010; net earning $2.6 Billion.

• ConAgra Website: Operating profit $1.65 Billion (gross profit $3 Billion) on net sales $12 Billion.

Corn is King

.

The major feed grains are corn, sorghum, barley, and oats. Corn is the primary feed grain in the United States, accounting for more than 90 percent of total feed grain production and use.

I wanted to make clearThe important linksbetween the feed grain business and the cattlefeeding business.

BEAR IN MIND: ETHANOL IS NET NEGATIVE IN ENERGY

More ethanol coming soon?

Ethanol Effects… Whose

cumulative impacts are

these?

USDA ERS estimatesof increased acreage in corn and increased N runoff ABOVE baseline projections due to biofuel targets

How did this happen?

Back to the farm again!

USDA ERS 14 Feb 2011 Estimates - Highlightshttp://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FarmIncome/nationalestimates.htm

External Input Addiction Hurts!• U.S. corn acreage using N fertilizer ~ 96%• Average US N applications ~ 138 lb/A• U.S. nitrogen and potash supplies largely depend on imports. More than

57 percent of nitrogen and 86 percent of potash was from imports in 2008. Because domestic production capacity is limited, any increase in fertilizer demand will have to be met largely by imports.

• Prices for anhydrous have gyrated lately:– 2005: 416– 2006: 521– 2007: 523– 2008: 755– 2009: 680– 2010: 499 ($/ton; USDA ERS

(http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/FertilizerUse/)

• VOLATILITY VS STABILITY AND LONG-TERM INVESTMENTS

Input Addiction is Financial Vulnerability Purchased inputs were $350.69Fuel was only $65.20But, that budget at $3.85 corn only lost $94 an acre… at 162 bu/acre. 10% better yield or better price, you would have won – Stay on the Treadmill?

How come I’m not in the business… aside from laziness…

USDA ERS 14 Feb 2011 Estimates - Highlightshttp://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FarmIncome/nationalestimates.htm

Whether expressed in nominal dollars or constant dollars, the forecast 2011 government payments would represent the smallest volume paid to producers since 1997. However, the importance of government payments as a percent of net cash farm income varies

SOIL EROSION – Is this sustainable? WHAT IF WE INTENSIFY FURTHER? USE CRP Highly Erodible Lands?

• 90% of US cropland is losing soil faster than it can be restored; (USDA ARS 2000) 75% of range needs help (Pimentel et al…)

• Erosion in US 17 times soil formation (USDA ARS 2000)

• ~ 1/3 of US topsoil was lost 30 years ago (Pimentel 1980)

• HALF of Iowa’s topsoil is gone – and still losing average 30 t/ha/yr (soil formation rate 0.5 to 1 t/ha/yr) (Pimentel, various)

• Costs to US, 2001: ~$37.6B/yr (but not with good ecosystems valuation or replacement of services costing) Old numbers now!

• $20B/yr for fertilizer replacement for lost nutrients (eroded soils take NPK away, as well as biological active fractions and potential) Old numbers now!

• And then there’s the incredible costs of pesticides, with 1000-fold increase in organophosphates (Pimentel 2005)

– Old numbers now! (Seen a lot of bees lately?)• On average, 1.5 kg of soil is lost in the production of 1 kg of corn

in the U.S. cornbelt (Gardiner and Miller 2004) MAYBE LESS NOW? BIG QUESTION: Trade-offs of less erosion with “no-till” with huge increases in herbicides!

Erosion Prospects: Worse• Soil and Water Conservation Society, 2003: Increased precipitation intensity

could undo all the progress since creation of SCS!• CCSP SAP 3.3 (2008,p. 4) : “Extreme precipitation episodes (heavy downpours)

have become more frequent… and now account for a larger percentage … intense precipitation… (the heaviest 1%...) in the continental U.S. increased by 20% over the past century while total precipitation increased by 7%...”

• Cumulative impacts increase sharply with more frequent and closer extreme events including synergy of stresses of different kinds

• Increased ET from warmer temperatures – changes in “natural” vegetation communities, range vulnerable, fire frequencies … Hybrid Ecologies now!

• Seasonality changes – longer growing season – weeds? Invasives… • Pressures on farming for input-intensive practices increased by ethanol

subsidy?, no-till with high levels of biocides stimulating herbicide and pesticide resistance (and animal and human disease resistance? CAFOs involved…)

• Soil Acidity? Some work in progress but so far, mountains, mostly (USGS NAPAP)

• Rental of ~31 MA Conservation Reserve Program highly erodible land ends

Timing and cumulative effect

• “More frequent extreme events occurring over a shorter period reduce the time available for recovery and adaptation. In addition, extreme events often occur in clusters. The cumulative effect of compound or back-to-back extremes can have far larger impacts than the same events spread out over a longer period…”

Global Agriculture and Food• Major Assessments: Urgent Need for Change

– International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development

– U.K. “Foresight: the Future of Food and Farming”– NOT currently generally sustainable! Less cheery than talks so

far on “ag day”• Climate Change: Agriculture role in GHGs, and land

conversion, carbon release or capture• Climate Change: Agriculture reforms as help for C

sequestration, methane and nitrous oxide reductions, and reduced energy and energy-intensive fertilizer use

• Critical vulnerabilities to energy, price volatility, political interactions with markets

• Massive hunger, chronic malnutrition… now!• And now, double food production next few decades???• Riding the tiger… this is not going to be easy or predictable

UN FAO – World Food Situation - http://www.fao.org/isfp/isfp-home/en/• By mid-2008, international food prices had skyrocketed to their highest level in 30 years. This, coupled with the global economic downturn, pushed

millions more people into poverty and hunger.

In December 2010, the FAO food price index had risen above its 2008 peak, and in January 2011, it had increased by 3.4 percent.

• Food prices will likely remain volatile. Efforts need to be scaled up at all levels to strengthen the resilience of small farmers to future shocks and to improve food and nutrition security over the long term.

• The double whammy of high food prices and the global economic slump pushed an additional 115 million people into poverty and hunger. By 2009, the total number of hungry people in the world had topped one billion.According to new global hunger figures, that number has since dipped to 925 million people. However, with the recent sharp increase in food prices, that number may rise.

• From July to September 2010, wheat prices had surged by 60 to 80 percent in response to drought-fuelled crop losses in Russia and a subsequent export ban by the Russian Federation. Rice and maize prices also rose during that period.

• By December 2010, the FAO Food Price Index had topped its 2008 peak, with sugar, oils and fats increasing the most. And the cost of basic food staples remains high in many developing countries, making life difficult for the world’s poorest people who already spend between 60 and 80 percent of their meagre income on food.

WHAT’S NOT SAIDIN THIS NEARLYLOUD ENOUGH?

HOW SUBSIDIZEDEXPORTS (Both in$ and fossil fuels) AND GLOBALIZATIONHAVE ADVERSELYAFFECTED LDC AG DEVELOPMENT

National Policy “Framing” – Renewable Energy

• How things are described and issues are “framed” matters!• Wind energy: forget all those windmills all over the West just spinning away…

– Too inefficient compared to engineering ideals?– Too cheap, too reliable, too easy to fix?– Think aerospace super-high-tech only! Nothing you can afford… (ignore

evidence to the contrary…)?– Anyway, not a perfect substitute for base-load at 100% reliability with

additional peaking capacity, so why bother? Change is unthinkable!• Methane – a few questions there, too…

– Official story (USDA 2011): gotta be big– Electricity generation is the only real goal– Dairies and hog CAFOs (but not feedlots!?)– Forget heating and smaller scales! BUT IT IS NOT SCALE-DEPENDENT!

• The big bucks are in things farmers can’t control (biodiesel too easy?) • BUT FARMS CAN PROBABLY BE FAR BETTER OFF

And policy processes… this is $572 million that had to be disclosed… since 1999

Speaking of framing…

DelusionsAbsolute Ownership (1066) – right to destroyPerfect Mobility of Capital (OK to treat everything as fungible)Accounting for Dead Stuff OK for Living ResourcesMarkets Work By Themselves (what’s in your wallet?)

There is No Public Interest in the Future!Group Self-Defense is Unthinkable – Ag cannot regionally integrate and close loops and sustain?The results show how little change we need?

Natural/Ecosystem Capital

Built Capital

Financial Capital Social Capital

Human Capital

Five Capitals --- Wiener, 2009 CPASW presentation; modifying Bebbington; see also Ellis, F., 2000, Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford U. Press.

DRAW YOUR OWN? WHAT KINDS OF CONVERSIONS ARE REALLY POSSIBLE? AND HOW EFFICIENT ARE THEY? WHAT CONVERSIONS DO WE NEED TO STRENGTHEN?

Conservation of inherent agricultural capacity

A working definition:Capacity of agricultural resources, including soils, techniques, crafts, and skills, live true-breeding seeds and livestock, to produce food, feed and fiber with inputs only from local and regional agricultural and related activity.

Right now, the only piece of the puzzle we’re burning faster than good soil is farmers!

Is NOT the maximum yield possible – (instead, maximum long-term economic yield – right-sizing)

From the remaining physical structure as a substrate for rooting In a very leaky hydroponic system Dependent on imports created far away, Often with very high energy intensity and technology And then expensively transported and sold By companies with little or no competition Which can ferociously squeeze the farmer on input costs, While the farmer is also being squeezed on output values By the use of massive energy and transportation subsidiesAnd foreign environmental-destruction subsidies To force competition with production Both in and out of the country, to the great profits of a few...

Business as usual: not for much longer….

Conservation of Inherent Agricultural Capacity

MORE intensification of monoculture?

If this is the answer, was it the right question? How hard do we work to keep this going?

Resilience? Of what?

Versuswhat?

For whom?

For how long?

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Organic/Demand.htm

Local Vs Organic – transition hope?• Sharp change in consumer preference since

USDA “organic lite” standards• Big Willingness To Pay – US wide, rural as well

as urban – for Local• Enormous increases in Community-Supported

Agriculture, direct sales and Farmers’ Markets, as well as “local” with premium prices in big retail chains…

• And, big electoral support for local land preservation and open space (Trust for Public Land “conservation vote website)

A Beginning Point: After the Sledge• An emerging challenge: to take the idea of maximum

economic yield (not the same as maximum yield of an output, but best return on investment of inputs)… and apply that to

• RIGHT-SIZING – best scale for a given combination of operations… (e.g. best scale for an on-farm energy need not same as for export)

• AND INTEGRATION – combine sets of right-sized operations, resources, and projects to achieve higher levels of resilience… (e.g., sets of renewable energy sources and scales of farms and cooperating groups of farms and ranches)