Mexico Guest Workers Neg-BHHM-SDI 2013-Paperless

7/27/2019 Mexico Guest Workers Neg-BHHM-SDI 2013-Paperless

1/251

Guest Workers Neg


2/251

AT: Agriculture Advantage


3/251

Top Level


4/251

1NC AT: Agriculture Advantage

No farm labor shortage wages are decreasing while profits are increasing

CNBC 12

(What the Invisible Farm Labor Shortage Is Really About 11/29, pg online athttp://www.cnbc.com/id/50016592//sd)

Despite the absolute lack of evidence of anything approachinga farm-labor shortage, complaints about thisinvisible menace continue to make headlines. Here's how a recent piece from the Washington bureau of Gannett begins: Farmers fromArizona to New York are struggling to find enough people to harvest their crops this season, a shortage they blame on state and federal laws designed to crack downon the migrant labor that makes up the bulk of the nation's seasonal farmworkers. "We see shortages in all parts of the country," said Kristi Boswell, director ofcongressional relations for the American Farm Bureau. "Farmers are struggling with fewer bodies out there to harvest the crop. They're definitely stressed." Farmerswith labor-intensive crops or livestock, including fruit, vegetables, nuts, Christmas trees and dairy cows say they are being hit especially hard. "We've got neighborsliterally competing against each other just to have enough of a workforce to harvest their crops," Boswell said. Heaven forefend! Neighbors "literally competingagainst each other." It's practically a civil war. The fact is that there is no data whatsoever to support the alleged farm l abor crisis. The latest data, issued from the

Department of Agriculture on November 27, shows that labor expenses on farms have increased just 0.7 percent over thepast year. Costs for hired labor, those who work on the farm long-term, are up just 0.5 percent. Costs forcontract labor, the harvest-time pickers, are up just 1.5 percent. In other words, labor costs are well-below the level of general priceinflation. In fact, farm labor costs are still below where they were in 2008 on a nominal basis. In real terms,labor costs are falling for

farmers. This doesn't mean all is well for the farmer. There are genuine challenges and for the first time in years, farm profits seem set to fall th is year. TheDepartment of Agriculture is projecting farm revenue to come in at a record $448.5 billion, which is a 4.6percent gain over last year. But expenses are rising for farms. The big increases in expenses are the cost of feed (up $12.2 billion,or 13 percent), seed (up $2.1 billion, or 11.9 percent), fertilizer (up $1.6 billion, or 6.3 percent), and pesticides (up $1.1 billion, or 9 percent). Theseincreases dwarf the $200 million increase in labor costs spread across the nation.If there were a laborshortage, we'd see the price of farm labor rising rapidly.We just don't see thatindicating that there isno shortage at all.There is, instead, a consist cry from the farm lobby for policy makers to adopt policiesaimed at lowering labor costs. Gannet reports, for example, that "the American Farm Bureau and other farm groups are working on a plan topresent to the new Congress that would allow more migrant laborers to work legally on U.S. farms." That's what all this noise is really about: enacting policies tocrush already low farm wages by allowing farmers to import more foreign workers.

No US ag collapsetheyre doing well nowGoodwin 2013, May 1, Barry Goodwin is reporter for the American Enterprise Institute, Moresubsidies for Prosperous farmers, http://www.american.com/archive/2013/may/more-subsidies-for-prosperous-farmersThe U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that farm income in 2013 will be more than double what itwas in 2009. The nations farmers are enjoying the benefits of high crop prices, massive crop insurancesubsidies, and technological advances that have made crops more resistant to drought. As a result,farmings record level of income far surpasses that of comparable non-farm sectors.Yet much of thedebate over new farm legislation seems oblivious to these facts. The latest farm bill would give farmerseven greater subsidies. In 2012, the Senate and the House failed to reach a consensus on a farm bill andinstead passed a compromise extension of expiring law. The hope was that the agricultural committees

would then develop a traditional omnibus farm bill package of legislation. The extension is set to expireon September 30; House and Senate leaders have pledged to complete a bill this year and the House willhold a markup this month. Today, as has increasingly been the case since the early 1980s, U.S. farmersare protected from significant yield and price losses by a massive and heavily subsidized crop insuranceprogram. The program offers most producers the option to guarantee up to 85 percent of theirprojected yield or revenue. The most popular form of crop insurance guarantees revenue and promisesto replace yield losses at the greater of the expected price at planting time or the actual price at harvest.


5/251

As crop prices and farm incomes have increased to record levels, so too have the revenues guaranteedto farmers under these insurance contracts and the subsidies paid by taxpayers.

Alt cause to ag collapseBee shortages prevent pollination

Grossman 13(Elizabeth, Public Policy Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Declining Bee Populations Pose A Threat to Global Agriculture pg online athttp://e360.yale.edu/feature/declining_bee_populations_pose_a_threat_to_global_agriculture/2645///sd)

One of every three bites of food eaten worldwide depends on pollinators, especially bees, for a successful

harvest . And in the past several months, a scramble in Californias almond groves has given the world a taste of what may lie in store for

food production if the widespread and still puzzling decimation of bee colonies continues. For much of the past 10 years, beekeepers,primarily in the United States and Europe, have been reporting annual hive losses of 30 percent or higher, substantiallymore than is considered normal or sustainable. But this winter, many U.S. beekeepers experienced losses of 40 to 50percent or more, just as commercial bee operations prepared to transport their hives for the countrys largest pollinator event: thefertilizing of Californias almond trees. Spread across 800,000 acres, Californias almond orchards typically require 1.6 milliondomesticated bee colonies to pollinate the flowering treesand produce what has become the states largest

overseas agricultural export. But given the widespread bee losses to so-called colony collapse disorderthis winter, Californias almond growers were able to pollinatetheir crop only through an intense,nationwide push to cobbletogether the In the long run, if we don't find some answers, we could lose a lot of bees, says one expert.necessary number of healthy bee colonies. Other crops dont need as many bees as the California almond orchards do, so shortages are notyet apparent, but if trends continue, there will be, said Tim Tucker, vice-president of the American Beekeeping Federation and owner of

Tuckerbees Honey in Kansas, which lost 50 percent of its hives this past winter. Current [bee] losses are not sustainable. Thetrend is down, as is the quality of bees.In the long run, if we dont find some answers, and the vigor continues to decline, wecould lose a lot of bees. The gravity of the situation was underscored on Monday, when the European Commission (EC) said it intended toimpose a two-year ban on a class of pesticides known as neonicotinoids, now the worlds most widely used type of insecticide.

Neonicotinoids are one of the leading suspected causes of colony collapse disorder, and the EuropeanCommission announced its controversial decision three months after the European Food Safety Agency concluded that the pesticidesrepresented a high acute risk to honeybees and other pollinators. The EC action will restrict the use of three majorneonicitinoids on seeds and plants attractive to bees, as well as grains, beginning December 1. I pledge to my utmost to ensure that our

bees, which are so vitalto our ecosystem and contribute over 22 billion Euros [$29 billion] annually to Europeanagriculture, are protected, said European Union Health Commissioner Tonio Borg. The EC action comes as scientists and regulatorshave grown increasingly concerned about the impact of colony collapse disorder on the worlds food

supply, given that the majority of the planets 100 most important food crops depend on insect

pollination . A recent international study of 41 crop systems on six continents showed that healthy populations of wild bees

are key to successful yields of crops ranging from pumpkins to grapefruit. Relying solely on domesticatedhoneybees could ultimately put those crops at risk, scientists say. Wild bees also have been declining in many places. No one investigating theissue is suggesting that neonicotinoids are the sole cause of current bee declines. Tucker, other beekeepers, and entomologists say that thecause of colony collapse disorder is likely a combination of factors that includes the widespread use of pesticides and fungicides, as well as thespread of viral pathogens and parasitic mites in beehives. While mites and diseases have long been known to cause significant declines indomesticated bee populations, no single pathogen or parasite, say entomologists, appears to sufficiently explain the current rate of hivecollapse. A recent study that found unprecedented levels of agricultural pesticides some at toxic levels in honeybee colonies is prompting

entomologists to look more closely at the role of neonicotinoids in current bee declines. No one is suggesting that neonicotinoids are the solecause of current bee declines. Some studies have indicated that neonicotinoids can lead to a sharp decline in queen bees in colonies and canalso interfere with the ability of bees to navigate back to their hives. James Frazier, a professor of entomology at Pennsylvania State University,said more research needs to be conducted into whether neonicotinoids, particularly in combination with other pesticides, may suppress theimmune system of bees at sub-lethal levels, enabling diseases to take hold. This is uncharted territory, said Purdue University associateprofessor of entomology Christian Krupke. Weve never done pest management like this before. While not downplaying neonicotinoids as apotential culprit, Eric Mussen, an apiculturiust at the University of California, Davis, noted that the case against these pesticides is not clear-cut.For example, honeybees are apparently doing fine in Australia, where neonicotinoids are widely used and varroa mites are not a problem.Neonicotinoid use is common in Canada, but colony collapse disorder is not significantly affecting hives there. University of California

Honeybees are brought in to pollinate onion crops at a California farm. In the U.S., several national environmentaladvocacy organizations and commercial beekeepers filed suit in March against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for its


6/251

conditional registration of certain neonicotinoids, contending that the agency did not properly ensure environmental health protections,particularly with respect to pollinators. The EPA is now reviewing its registration of neonicotinoids and has accelerated the review schedule dueto uncertainties about these pesticides and their potential effects on bees. The agency said in an email that it is working with beekeepers,growers, pesticide manufacturers, and others to improve pesticide use, labeling, and management practices to protect bees and to thoroughlyevaluate the effects of pesticides on honeybees and other pollinators. As part of these efforts, the EPA is working with pesticide and agriculturalequipment manufacturers to reduce the release of neonicotinoid-contaminated dust during planting a time when commercial bees are likelyto encounter the insecticide. In the U.S., neonicotinoids are currently used on about 95 percent of corn and canola crops; the majority ofcotton, sorghum, and sugar beets; and about half of all soybeans. Theyre also used on the vast majority of fruit and vegetable crops, including

apples, cherries, peaches, oranges, berries, leafy greens, tomatoes, and potatoes. Neonicotinoids are also applied to cereal grains, rice, nuts,and wine grapes. Charles Benbrook, research professor at Washington State Universitys Center for Sustaining Agriculture and NaturalResources, has estimated that neonicotinoids are used on approximately 75 percent of the acres devoted to these crops in the U.S. They arealso widely used on landscaping plants and urban trees and in numerous home garden pest-control products all in places frequented by

bees, domesticated and wild. There is no place to go hide,saysNew York beekeeper Jim Doan, a director of theAmerican Beekeeping Federation. The outlook is not good.


7/251

Ext No Ag Labor Shortages

No labor shortagesincreasing wages solvesno risk to Ag profits

Sowell13

(Thomas, PhD in Economics at University of Chicago, Senior Fellow on public policy at the HooverInstitute, Who Needs Immigrant Labor? June 11, pg online at

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/350684/who-needs-immigrant-labor-thomas-sowell//sd)One of the most common arguments for allowing more immigration is that there is a need for foreign workers to do jobs that Americanswont do, especially in agriculture. One of my most vivid memories of the late Armen Alchian, an internationally renowned economist at UCLA,involved a lunch at which one of the younger members of the economics department got up to go get some more coffee. Being a consideratesort, the young man asked, Does anyone else need more coffee? Need? Alchian said loudly, in a cutting tone that clearly conveyed hisdismay and disgust at hearing an economist using such a word. A recent editorial on immigration in the Wall Street Journal brought back to me

the memory of Alchians response with a statement about the needs of an industry in which labor shortages can run ashigh as 20 percent namely agriculture. Although need is a word often used in politics and in themedia, from an economic standpoint there is no such thing as an objective and quantifiable need. Youmight think it obvious that we all need food to live. But however urgent it may be to have some food, beyondsome point food becomes not only unnecessary but even counterproductive and dangerous. Widespread obesity

among Americans shows that many have already gone too far with food.This is not just a matter ofsemantics, but ofeconomics. In the real world, employers compete for workers, just as they compete for customers fortheir output. And workers go where there is more demand for them, as expressed by what employers offer to pay. Farmersmay wish for more farm workers, just as any of us may wish for anything we would like to have. But that is whollydifferent from thinking that some third party should define what we desire as a need,much less expectgovernment policy to meet that need.In a market economy, when farmers are seeking more farm workers, the mostobvious way to get them is to raise the wage rate until they attract enough people away from alternative occupations orfrom unemployment. With the higher labor costs that this would entail, the number of workers that farmers needwould undoubtedly be lessthan what it would have been if there were more workers who are availableat lower wage rates, such as immigrants from Mexico. It is no doubt more convenient and profitable to the farmers toimport workers for lower pay than to pay American workers more. But bringing in more immigrants is not without costs to

other Americans, including both financial costs, in a welfare state, and social costs, of which increased crime ratesare just one. Some advocates of increased immigration have raised the specter of higher food prices without foreign farm workers. Buttheprice that farmers receive for their produce is usually a fraction of what the consumers pay at thesupermarket. And what the farmers pay the farm workers is a fraction of what the farmer gets for theproduce. In other words, even if labor costs doubled, the rise in prices at the supermarket might be barelynoticeable. Jobs that Americans will not do are in fact jobs at which not enough Americans will work at the current wage rate that someemployers are offering. This is not an uncommon situation. That is why labor shortages lead to higher wage rates. A

shortage is no more quantifiable than a need when you ignore prices, which are crucial in a market economy. To discuss need

and shortage while ignoring prices in this case, wages is especially remarkable in a usuallymarket-savvy publication like the Wall Street Journal. Often shortages have been predicted in variousoccupationsand yet have never materialized. Why? Because the pay in those occupations rose, causingmore people to go into those occupations and employers to reduce the number of people they need at the higher pay rates. Virtually every

kind of work that Americans will not do is in fact work that Americans have done for generations. Inmany cases, most of the people doing that work today are Americans. And there are certainly many unemployedAmericans, available to meet farmers needs today without bringing in more foreign workers.

Squo Solves for Labor shortage- with increasing wages

Carney 2013,May 24, John Carney: senior editor for CNBC News, Farmers Solve Labor Shortage byRaising Pay http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/24/famers-solve-labor-shortage-by-raising-pay.html


8/251

The Department of Agriculture reports: Farm operators paid their hired workers an average wage of$11.91 per hour during the April 2013 reference week, up 4 percent from a year earlier. Field workersreceived an average of $10.92 per hour, up 4 percent from a year earlier. Livestock workers earned$11.46, up 51 cents. The field and livestock worker combined wage rate, at $11.10 per hour, was up 48cents from a year earlier. Hired laborers worked an average of 40.3 hours during the April 2013reference week, compared with 39.2 hours a year earlier. Maybe someone should tell the Partnershipfor a New American Economy about this. It's just crazy enough that it may work!By the way, don't worryabout this bankrupting the great American farmer. Farm profits are expected to rise by more than 13percent this yearto more than double what they were as recently as 2009.

Wages are the best indicator of labor shortages

Levine 9(Linda, specialist in labor economics for the Congressional Research Service, Farm Labor Shortages and

Immigration Policy 11/9 pg online at http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL30395.pdf//sd)As previously stated, economic theory suggests that if the demand for labor is nearing or hasoutstripped the supply of labor, firms will in the short-run bid up wages to compete for workers.Consequently, earnings in the short-supply field would be expected to increase more rapidly than

earnings across all industries or occupations. The ratio of, in this instance, farm to nonfarm wages

would accordingly be expected to rise if the farm labor supply were tight.

No farm labor shortageall the affs reports are subjective prefer concrete data

Martin, 07. Philip Martin is a professor of agricultural and resource economics at the University ofCalifornia, Davis. November 2007. Center for Immigration Studies. Farm Labor Shortages: How Real?

What Response. http://www.cis.org/articles/2007/back907.html clawanFor several years stories in the media have reported a farm labor shortage. This study examines this question andfinds little evidence to support this conclusion. First, fruit and vegetable production is actually rising.Second, wages for farm workers have not risen dramatically. Third, household expenditure on fresh

fruits and vegetables has remain relatively constant, averaging about $1 a day for the past decade. Among the findings:

Production of fruits and vegetables has been increasing. In particular, plantings of very-labor intensive crops such ascherries and strawberries have grown by more than 20 percent in just five years. The average farm worker makes$9.06 an hour, compared to $16.75 for non-farm production workers. Real wages for farm workers increased one-half of onepercent (.5 percent) a year on average between 2000 and 2006. If there were a shortage, wages would be risingmuch more rapidly. Farm worker earnings have risen more slowly in California and Florida (the states with the most fruit and vegetableproduction) than in the United States as a whole. The average household spends only about $1 a day on fresh fruits and vegetables. Labor costscomprise only 6 percent of the price consumers pay for fresh produce. Thus, if farm wages were allowed to rise 40 percent, and if all the costswere passed on to consumers, the cost to the average household would be only about $8 a year. Mechanization could offset higher labor costs.After the Bracero Mexican guestworker program ended in the mid-1960s, farm worker wages rose 40 percent, but consumer prices roserelatively little because the mechanization of some crops dramatically increased productivity. Labor-saving mechanization can be difficult forone farmer, since packers and processors are usually set up to deal either with hand-picked or machine-picked crops, but not both.Government has a key role to play in facilitating mechanization. Introduction News reports and editorials suggest widespread farm laborshortages. The Los Angeles Times described a nationwide farm worker shortage threatening to leave fruits and vegetables rotting in fields.1

The Wall Street Journal in a July 20, 2007, editorial claimed that farmers nationwide are facing their most serious labor shortage in years. Theeditorial asserted that 20 percent of American agricultural products were stranded at the farm gate in 2006, including a th ird of NorthCarolina cucumbers, and predicted that crop losses in California would hit 30 percent in 2007. The Wall Street Journal editorial continued that,since growers can only afford to pay so much and stay competitive, some U.S. growers are moving fruit and vegetable production abroad. TheNew York Times profiled a southern California vegetable grower who rented land in Mexico to produce lettuce and broccoli because, thegrower asserted: I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that if I did that *raise U.S. wages+ I would raise my costs and I would not have a legal

work force.2 These reports of farm labor shortages are not accompanied by data that would buttress theanecdotes, like lower production of fruits and vegetables or a rise in farm wages as growers scrambled for thefewer workers available. There is a s imple reason. Fruit and vegetable production is rising, the average earnings of farm workers are not goingup extraordinarily fast, and consumers are not feeling a pinch the cost of fresh fruits and vegetables has averaged about $1 a day for mosthouseholds over the past decade. This Backgrounder reviews definitions of farm labor shortages, trends in the production of fresh fruits and


9/251

vegetables, farm worker earnings and consumer prices, and the ways in which growers would adjust to higher farm wages. The new Farm Billwould spend $286 billion over the next five years on farm subsidies and food assistance, including assistance for specialty crops. Instead ofusing tax funds to increase production of U.S. fruits and vegetables in ways that require migrant workers, it may be better to subsidize thelabor-saving mechanization needed to keep U.S. fruit and vegetable agriculture competitive in an increasingly global marketplace. Farm Labor

Shortages There is no economic or government definition of persisting shortage. In a market economy, demandcurves rank consumers by their willingness to pay a particular price for a commodity, and supply curves rank suppliers by their willingness tosell at particular prices. In the familiar X-diagram, if demand exceeds supply, prices rise, reducing demand and increasing supply; if supply

exceeds demand, prices fall. Producers of fresh fruits and vegetables are very familiar with the price changes associated with these workings ofthe market, especially with shifts in supply. Demand and supply adjustments to price changes can occur withconsiderable lags. For example, growers of perennial crops such as apples or oranges must decide if high prices are likely to persistbefore making the investments necessary for additional production, since it may be three or more years between the time a tree is planted andthe grower harvests a first crop. Government intervention can slow the market adjustments that normally bring supply and demand intobalance. If there is a ceiling on the price of a commodity, there can be shortages, as with price-controlled apartments in New York City. Ifsuppliers are guaranteed high prices, there can be surpluses, as with some farm commodities. The labor market adjusts in the same way, usingwage changes to send signals about changes in supply and demand. Labor demand curves rank employers by the wages they are willing to payto fill particular jobs, and labor supply curves rank workers by their reservation wages, which are the wages needed to induce them to fillparticular jobs. As with farmers who must decide whether to plant more perennial crops in response to higher prices, there can be lagsbetween changes in the demand for labor and a supply response. For example, an IT-boom can sharply increase the wages of computerprogrammers but not produce an immediate surge in programmers because it takes time to acquire the needed education and skills.Government intervention also affects labor market adjustments. Farm and trade policies affect the demand for labor by encouraging newplantings if tariff and other barriers to exports are reduced, as with apples and oranges sent to Japan and Korea. Government policies in areasfrom education and training to welfare and minimum wages can affect the supply of workers by providing other options for those who would

otherwise fill seasonal farm jobs. However, the major government intervention that affects the farm labor market is immigration. According tothe most recent U.S. Department of Labor survey, over three-fourths of the hired workers employed on U.S. crop farms were born outside the

United States, usually in Mexico. The same survey found that 53 percent of crop workers were unauthorized.3 Media reports of farmlabor shortages usually quote farm employers saying they have fewer workers than they want . For example,a farm employer may claim a labor shortage if there is a crew of 30 working but a crew of 40 is preferred, or if the farmer asked for two crewsof workers today but contractors do not bring them until tomorrow.


10/251

Ext US Agriculture Alt-Causes

Climate change causes drought and overheats cropsirrecoverable collapse of Ag

Lewis 13

(Thomas A, Instructor of Mass Communication at Frostburg State, The Daily Impact, USDA ReportForesees Collapse of Agriculture 2/8/13 pg online at http://www.dailyimpact.net/2013/02/08/usda-foresees-collapse-of-agriculture///sd)A new US Department of Agriculture report looking only at the threat ofclimate change implies that industrial agriculturewill be on its knees in 25 years.Were going to end up in a situation where we have a multitude ofthings happening that are going to negatively impact crop production, said Jerry Hatfield, lead author of the study.In fact, we saw this in 2012 with the drought . Ever the cheerleader for industrial agriculture, the USDA insists that corporatefarmers will be fine for a couple dozen years as long as they increase irrigation, use genetically modified, drought-resistant seeds and move.After that time frame, however, the USDA report the third annual Climate Assessment Report, just released in draft form for public review

throws up its hands and admits that escalating temperatures will stunt crops, reduce yields, stimulate weeds andinsects, overheat food animals, foster disease and worst of all reduce profitability. In other words, it will bethe end of the world as they know it. Okay, thats snide. The report states flatly that within 25 years the cumulative effects of

global warming will become a threat to the security of the United States. The report *summarized in USA Today+ is remarkable on two counts.First, of course, is that the cheerleaders are losing their cheery confidence that we will somehow win this game. Second is how pessimistic they

become when looking at only one set of threats. According to the report, one way to fight climate change, which already has halfthe country locked in a vicious drought, is to increase irrigation. Right. And their likely advice to the millions who willbe starving when the water runs out and the crops fail: you should eat more. What about topsoil loss, whichcontinues to accelerate despite billions spent on conservation half-measures? What about the rise ofpesticide-resistant weeds, bugs and bacteria? What about the poisoning of rivers and lakes, and the dead zones inthe oceans? Add all these effects to the reports slender surveyand its hard to imagine getting through 25 years before it getsserious. Still, can we expect Big Ag to change its ways now that its own team has issued a report as brutal in its outlook as this one? Hardly.

Because the same government that paid for the report gives them cheap insurance against crop failure. Cheap crop insurance likecheap flood insurance is a product so ruinous to the insurer that no private company will touch it.


11/251

Immigration Cant Solve Ag

Immigration process is not quick enough to stop shortagesalt causes

Sumption 11

(Madeleine, Masters in Public Policy at University of Chicago, senior policy analyst at the MigrationPolicy Institute, Filling Labor Shortages through Immigration: An Overview of Shortage Lists and their

Implications Feb, pg online at http://migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID=828//sd)A second, though perhaps less troubling, challenge is timeliness. Labor market conditions are somewhat variablebut datasources and shortage lists respond with a timelag.The United Kingdom and New Zealand, for instance, updatetheir shortage lists every six months, while others (such as Ireland) adjustthe list periodically without a specifictimetable. By the time the data is analyzed (sometimes months after it was collected) and a profession added to the shortagelist, and by the time foreign workers have applied for the jobs, obtained visas, and arrived in thedestination country, the recruitingdifficultiesthey were supposed to alleviate may have disappeared. For

their part, existing workers might have responded to signs of high demand and trained to enter the

profession. Alternatively, economic conditions might have changed , decimating demand in cyclical industries. In cases

where hiring was difficult precisely because of a business cycle boom, a downturn could reduce employment demand quitefast. These realities mean that policymakers who expect immigrants to respond in real time to skills

shortages as they emerge and promptly return home as the shortages recede are likely to be

disappointed. The challenges inherent in measuring labor shortages, together with the issues of accuracy and

timeliness, means that the actual number of shortage occupations might not automatically adjust to theeconomic cyclea concern for some policymakers.


12/251

AT: Ag Key Economy

Ag not key to the economy and its resilient

US Embassy 8

(A SERVICE ECONOMY 4/8 pg online athttp://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/publication/2008/04/20080415222038eaifas0.9101831.html#axzz2Y6bE2bbc//sd)Services produced by private industry accounted for 67.8 percent ofU.S. gross domestic product in 2006, with realestate and financial services such as banking, insurance, and investment on top. Some othercategories ofservices are wholesale and retail sales; transportation; health care; legal, scientific, and management services;education; arts; entertainment; recreation; hotels and other accommodation; restaurants, bars, and other foodand beverage services. Production of goods accounted for 19.8 percent of GDP: manufacturingsuch as computers, autos,aircraft, machinery12.1 percent; construction, 4.9 percent; oil and gas drilling and other mining, 1.9 percent; agriculture, lessthan 1 percent. Federal, state, and local governments accounted for the rest12.4 percent of GDP. The most rapidly expanding sectorsare financial services; professional, scientific, and technical services; durable goods manufacturing, especially computers and electronic

products; real estate; and health care. Decreasing their share of GDP growth are agriculture and mining and some

other kinds of manufacturing, such as textiles. "Low-value, commodity-based manufacturing is disappearingfrom the United States, moving to developing nations where routine manufacturing canbe performed atlow cost," the Council on Competitiveness says. Yet the United States remains the world's top manufacturing country, its factories producinggoods worth $1.49 trillion in 2005, 1.5 times the level in the next country, Japan. And the value of U.S. agricultural productiontrails that of only China and India. Even though agriculture now has a small share of GDP, farmers remaineconomically and politically powerful forces. In 2002 the market value of U.S. farm production amounted to more than $200billion, including $45 billion for cattle and calves; nearly $40 billion for grains, such as corn and wheat, and oilseeds such as soybeans; nearly$24 billion for poultry and eggs; $20 billion for milk and other dairy products; and $12 billion for hogs and pigs. Even though the United States

has more than 2 million farms, a relatively tiny number of big corporate farms dominate1.6 percent of farms in 2002accounted for half of all sales. Despite its overall trade deficit, the United States has a surplus in agriculture. U.S. farm exports in2007 are forecast at $78 billion, with the largest share going to Asian countries, although Canada and Mexico account for thelargest share of recent growth in agricultural exports. About one-fourth of U.S. farm output is exported. The United Statesalso maintains a trade surplus in services, $79.7 billion in 2006. The biggest U.S. services export category was travel by foreigners to the UnitedStates, $85.8 billion that year. In contrast, the United States runs a large and growing deficit in merchandise goods trade. While the UnitedStates exported more than $1 trillion in goods in 2006, it imported more than $1.8 trillion worth. By far the top imports that year were autosand auto parts, $211.9 billion, and crude oil, $225.2 billion. The top sources of U.S. imports were Canada, China, Mexico, Japan, and Germany.Among the top U.S. exports in 2006 were autos and auto parts, semiconductors, and civilian aircraft. The top U.S. export destinations were

Canada, Mexico, Japan, China, and the United Kingdom. In 2000-2006, even though U.S. goods exports increased 33 percent, U.S. goodsimports went up even faster, 52 percent; thegoods deficit nearly doubled over those years. The $758.5billion trade deficit amounted to 5.7 percent of 2006 GDP, a level viewed as unsustainable by manyeconomists because it relies on continuing inflows of foreign investment to pay for it. But what makes the U.S.economy so dynamic?


13/251

AT: Food Security/Prices Impacts


14/251

1NC AT: Food Security Impact

US ag cant resolve global food security regional investments are key

OGFS, 9. Office of Global Food Security, US Department of State, September 28, 2009. Global Hunger

and Food Security Initiative: Consultation Document.http://www.state.gov/s/globalfoodsecurity/129952.htm clawanThe United States alone cannot meet the global need to reduce hunger and promote food security. Andforeign assistance alone will not end hunger or eliminate under-nutrition. We must draw on significant investmentsfrom other donors, the private sector, partner countries, and citizens themselves. Foreign assistancemust play a key role in strengthening public institutions that catalyze private investment rather than hold it back. It must alsoinvest in the experience of the small-scale farmers and business that can succeed by providing them with loans to jumpstartoperations. The most effective food security strategies come from those closest to the problemsnotgovernments or institutions thousands of miles away. In the past, our efforts have been undermined by alack of coordination, limited transparency, uneven monitoring and evaluation, and relationships with recipientcountries based more on patronage than partnership. Going forward, we will emphasize consultation and careful analysis of impactand make corrections as we go. While we will increase our own efforts, success will ultimately rest on the shoulders of the farmersand entrepreneurs who wake up each day committed to grow their future. It also will rest on the national and local leadersin their countries who must foster environments where investments in agricultural development can thrive, with zero tolerance for the petty corruptionand polices that restrict agriculture-led growth.

US ag not key UK food production solves

Defra, 8. Department for Environment, the UK government department responsible for policy andregulations on environmental, food and rural issues. Our priorities are to grow the rural economy,improve the environment and safeguard animal and plant health.Food and Rural Affairs. July 2008.Ensuring the UKs Food Security in a Changing World. http://www.ifr.ac.uk/waste/Reports/DEFRA-Ensuring-UK-Food-Security-in-a-changing-world-170708.pdf clawanUK food production needs to respond to growing global demand for food 4.21. We need to feed a

growing world population in a way that does not degrade the natural resources on which farming andfood production ultimately depend. 4.22. UK production is of course crucial to our food supply , but it is not on its ownsufficient for UK food security. We should encourage a sufficient volume of domestic production for the food supply chain as a whole, and that means continuing toENSURING THE UKS FOOD SECURITY IN A CHANGING WORLD 20 encourage a market-driven, efficient and environmentally sustainable farming sector producingwhat consumers want. 4.23. Domestic farming will need the capacity to respond to changes, including to climate and market changes. These cha nges will meanusing different crops and varieties, and building capacity to deal with evolving risks and threats including volatile prices, adverse weather, and pests a nd disease,

while at the same time providing assurance over production methods and a proper, risk-based use of agro-chemicals. The Government iscommitted to supporting UK food and farming 4.24. Defra has as one of its departmental strategicobjectives a thriving farming and food sector with an improving net environmental impact", and

promoting a strong domestic farming sectoralongside stakeholder partners is central to Defras work. 4.25. Farming's economic andenvironmental performance are inextricably linked, and we need to make progress across both fronts in order to meet the global challenges ahead - includingfeeding a growing world population in a way that does not degrade the natural resources on which farming a nd food production ultimately depends. This is one ofthe central principles of the Government's Sustainable Farming and Food Strategy. 4.26. Defras spends half its research budget on supporting the farming and foodsectors. 27.5 million is aimed at resource management in the farming and food industries, including energy and water use and additional activity on climate changemitigation and adaptation. 4.27. The Rural Development Programme for England will invest 3.9 billion in England's farming industry and rural areas over 2007-

2013; this funding will help secure environmental goods that the market does not currently reward including: 3.3 billion to support farmers deliveringenvironmental land management, forestry schemes, uplands and energy crops; 300 million to help improve farming's competitiveness and sustainability; and

300 million to support the wider rural economy and communities. ENSURING THE UKS FOOD SECURITY IN A CHANGING WORLD 21 The Government isalso supporting research on the best ways to respond to growing competition for land 4.28. Defra, workingtogether with the Department for Communities and Local Government, are joint sponsors of an independent Foresight Land Use Futures project which was

launched in April 2008. The project will explore how societys use of land could evolve over the next 50 years andhow Government needs to respond. The Government is supporting the farming industry in its fightagainst diseases and pests 4.29. The Government is working with food producers and processors to helpprevent animal and plant diseases disrupting food supplies. Defra is spending 405 million on preventing and controlling animal


15/251

diseases. Steps taken by the Government and industry together in recent years to prevent outbreaks andspread of disease have helped to ensure that plant and animal diseases in the UK do not have a major orprolonged impact on food production and supply. The arrival of diseases like bluetongue show some of the challenges we face. 4.30.Defra is working with the farming industry to develop new arrangements for cost and responsibility sharing. This will provide an opportunity forGovernment and the farming industry to reach better decisions on the prevention, control anderadication of plant and animal diseases that command the widest possible support. The Government is working with the farming industry toensure there are enough workers with the right skills

Food insecurity doesnt cause conflict no correlation and alt causes

Maxwell, 12. Daniel Maxwell, Research Director for Food Security and Complex Emergencies;Professor; MAHA Director. 13-14 SEPTEMBER 2012. Food Security and Its Implications for PoliticalStability: A Humanitarian Perspective.

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/cfs_high_level_forum/documents/FS-Implications-Political_Stability-Maxwell.pdf clawanSeveral potential conclusions emerge from this discussion. First, the causal relationship between food security and politicalstability in humanitarian emergencies is complex and difficult to generalize that is to say that food insecurity can be caused by

conflict/political instability, and political instability can be caused by food insecurity. Militarized conflict an extreme form of political instability hasclearly been a major driver of humanitarian emergencies, particularly since the end of the cold war, with high levels of food insecurity a common consequenc e ofthese emergencies. However, at the same time, many of the local drivers of conflict have been related to control over land and other natural resources, which are

ultimately linked to people s livelihoods and therefore to their food security (Alinovi, Hemrich, & Russo , 2008). In most of these emergencies, it isn t reallypossible to specify the independent and dependent variables in the relationship. The relationship can be understood inany given context, but it is circular and iterative, not linear. And, it should also be noted, that there isn t always any particularlydemonstrable relationship between the two. Substantial levels of food insecurity can exist without therebeing any driver related to political instability, and without necessarily causing major political instability.Hence, a certain amount of caution is justified regarding any general theory of the link between the two. Second, there are some common driversof both political instability and food insecurity. Climate change is at least partly implicated for both in the Darfur conflict, forexample: as rainfall patterns changed, nomadic camel herders had to migrate farther and farther southwards to find dry season grazing and water, which broughtthem increasingly into conflict with other ethnic and livelihoods groups and made the lack of a designated homeland or Dar for the nomadic groups more evident(Young et al., 2005). Needless to say, the Darfur conflict was quickly politicized by other actors predominantly the ruling p arty in Khartoum for their own purposes,so it would be wrong to blame the Darfur crisis predominantly on climate change. Nevertheless, it likely played a crucial underlying role. Increasing frequency of

drought and climate variability is equally implicated in food security crises elsewhere. It seems unlikely that there will be any change in theforeseeable future in a number of drivers of food insecurity: the volatility ofshort-term weather impacts and medium-term climate change impacts, thevolatility of global and local food prices, or the number oflocalized conflicts (ripe for manipulation the way Darfur or Somalia were). In other words, thenumber of localized food security crises is unlikely to decrease. This has major implications for both humanitarian preparednessand response and for policy makers worried more broadly about the implications for political stability, notwithstanding the c aution raised above about generalizingthe relationship between food insecurity and political stability. The social protection responses rolled out on a national scale in Ethiopia, and piloted in a number ofother countries have certainly made progress in providing a safety net but the jury is still out on whether such programs actually offer a broadly accessible ladder

out of poverty and chronic food insecurity. It is likely that substantially more resources will be required to achieve the latterobjective at scale, and the infrastructure and capacity needed for implementation are likely inadequate inthe most affected countries.


16/251

1NC AT: Food Prices Impact

Food price impacts exaggerated experts agree

BBC 12 (October 15th, Food price crisis: What crisis?, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19715504)

And yet most experts agree the situation is nothing like as dire as it was four years ago , nor in fact two yearsago when droughts again hit food production hard, sending prices to record highs. Prices are measured against expectations, and harvests havenot been as bad as many had feared. More importantly, stocks are in better shape. Perhaps most importantly, keyproducers, in particular Russia, have not imposed the kinds of export bans that helped trigger previous pricehikes. These were particularly damaging as the world has become more dependent for its grain on the Commonwealth of IndependentStates, which includes some of the world's biggest producers of wheat, including Russia, Kazakhstan and unofficial member Ukraine. "Bigproducers have been battered by drought but they are honouring their export contracts," says James Walton, chief economist at food expertsIGD. "If Russia or central Asian countries were going to do something, they would probably have done it by now." The Agricultural MarketInformation System, which was established last year and allows the world's major food producers to work off common data as well as providinga forum for discussion, has played an important part. "Governments are shying away from restrictive measures; supplies are not as bad and

inventories are not as bad," says Abdolreza Abbassian, senior economist at the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation. "Recentexperiences have made people a little over sensitive, but [the situation] does not look as bad [as 2008]".In fact, according to Mr Abbassian, there is no shortage of rice, despite patchy harvests, while

inventories of wheat are good, and much higher than in 2007. Sugar production in Brazil has also beenmuch better than expected, while China has generally had a good growing season, Mr Waltonadds.There is also less pressure on prices from biofuels, a "big factor" in the 2008 price spikes, MrAbbassian says, when a record high for the price of oil drove demand for alternative fuels. Corn andsugar, for example, are used extensively in biofuels - in the US, 40% of all corn production goes intomaking ethanol. Not only is the oil price well below those highs, but the UN says fewer crops are being

diverted towards biofuels. Overall, then, fears of an impending food price crisis would appear to be

exaggerated. "There has been a lot of talk about food prices at the UN, the International Monetary

Fund and the World Bank, and the general feeling is we are not in the same situation we were in in 2008,"says Marc Sadler, senior agriculture economist at the World Bank.

Farmers and governments check high food prices

Wang 12 (Weijing; Are High Food Prices Good or Bad? http://asia.ifad.org/web/china/blogs/-/blogs/are-high-food-prices-good-or bad?p_p_auth=mnKY6vAo&p_r_p_564233524_categoryId=0&_33_redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fasia.ifad.org%2Fweb%2Fchina%2Fblogs%3Fp_p_auth%3DmnKY6vAo%26p_p_id%3D33%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn-2%26p_p_col_count%3D4%26p_r_ p_564233524_categoryId%3D0&) HSPeople normally think high food prices are bad, or at least bad to net consumers, although good to netproducers. As many small holders and the poor are the net consumers, they are vulnerable to high foodprices. The memory of 2008 food crisis is still fresh to many people: the high food prices exaggeratedpoverty and pushed more than 100 million people into hunger in 2008 (WFP, 2008). In the recent south-south cooperation workshop in Beijing however, it was argued that high food prices were not always

bad. When the prices go up, it hurts farmers, but farmers will quickly have coping strategy and producemore. They become producers and benefit from the high prices. This opinion is likely to be consistentwith Chinese governments food prices policy. The objective of food price policy is to keep the foodprices growing moderately. The rationale is to provide enough incentives for farming, and graduallyincrease farmers income, but not too radical to cause food crisis. I think it seems a good blueprint butthe question is how well for government to create an environment to allow the prices grow moderately?And if there is a pressure of volatility of food prices , how well could the government, the community,the producers and the consumers prevent and prepare for it?
http://asia.ifad.org/web/china/blogs/-/blogs/are-high-food-prices-good-or%20bad?p_p_auth=mnKY6vAo&p_r_p_564233524_catego%20ryId=0&_33_redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fasia.ifad.org%2Fweb%2Fchina%2Fblogs%3Fp%20_p_auth%3DmnKY6vAo%26p_p_id%3D33%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn-2%26p_p_col_count%3D4%26p_r_%20p_564233524_categoryId%3D0&http://asia.ifad.org/web/china/blogs/-/blogs/are-high-food-prices-good-or%20bad?p_p_auth=mnKY6vAo&p_r_p_564233524_catego%20ryId=0&_33_redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fasia.ifad.org%2Fweb%2Fchina%2Fblogs%3Fp%20_p_auth%3DmnKY6vAo%26p_p_id%3D33%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn-2%26p_p_col_count%3D4%26p_r_%20p_564233524_categoryId%3D0&http://asia.ifad.org/web/china/blogs/-/blogs/are-high-food-prices-good-or%20bad?p_p_auth=mnKY6vAo&p_r_p_564233524_catego%20ryId=0&_33_redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fasia.ifad.org%2Fweb%2Fchina%2Fblogs%3Fp%20_p_auth%3DmnKY6vAo%26p_p_id%3D33%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn-2%26p_p_col_count%3D4%26p_r_%20p_564233524_categoryId%3D0&http://asia.ifad.org/web/china/blogs/-/blogs/are-high-food-prices-good-or%20bad?p_p_auth=mnKY6vAo&p_r_p_564233524_catego%20ryId=0&_33_redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fasia.ifad.org%2Fweb%2Fchina%2Fblogs%3Fp%20_p_auth%3DmnKY6vAo%26p_p_id%3D33%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn-2%26p_p_col_count%3D4%26p_r_%20p_564233524_categoryId%3D0&http://asia.ifad.org/web/china/blogs/-/blogs/are-high-food-prices-good-or%20bad?p_p_auth=mnKY6vAo&p_r_p_564233524_catego%20ryId=0&_33_redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fasia.ifad.org%2Fweb%2Fchina%2Fblogs%3Fp%20_p_auth%3DmnKY6vAo%26p_p_id%3D33%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn-2%26p_p_col_count%3D4%26p_r_%20p_564233524_categoryId%3D0&http://asia.ifad.org/web/china/blogs/-/blogs/are-high-food-prices-good-or%20bad?p_p_auth=mnKY6vAo&p_r_p_564233524_catego%20ryId=0&_33_redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fasia.ifad.org%2Fweb%2Fchina%2Fblogs%3Fp%20_p_auth%3DmnKY6vAo%26p_p_id%3D33%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn-2%26p_p_col_count%3D4%26p_r_%20p_564233524_categoryId%3D0&http://asia.ifad.org/web/china/blogs/-/blogs/are-high-food-prices-good-or%20bad?p_p_auth=mnKY6vAo&p_r_p_564233524_catego%20ryId=0&_33_redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fasia.ifad.org%2Fweb%2Fchina%2Fblogs%3Fp%20_p_auth%3DmnKY6vAo%26p_p_id%3D33%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn-2%26p_p_col_count%3D4%26p_r_%20p_564233524_categoryId%3D0&http://asia.ifad.org/web/china/blogs/-/blogs/are-high-food-prices-good-or%20bad?p_p_auth=mnKY6vAo&p_r_p_564233524_catego%20ryId=0&_33_redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fasia.ifad.org%2Fweb%2Fchina%2Fblogs%3Fp%20_p_auth%3DmnKY6vAo%26p_p_id%3D33%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn-2%26p_p_col_count%3D4%26p_r_%20p_564233524_categoryId%3D0&http://asia.ifad.org/web/china/blogs/-/blogs/are-high-food-prices-good-or%20bad?p_p_auth=mnKY6vAo&p_r_p_564233524_catego%20ryId=0&_33_redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fasia.ifad.org%2Fweb%2Fchina%2Fblogs%3Fp%20_p_auth%3DmnKY6vAo%26p_p_id%3D33%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn-2%26p_p_col_count%3D4%26p_r_%20p_564233524_categoryId%3D0&http://asia.ifad.org/web/china/blogs/-/blogs/are-high-food-prices-good-or%20bad?p_p_auth=mnKY6vAo&p_r_p_564233524_catego%20ryId=0&_33_redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fasia.ifad.org%2Fweb%2Fchina%2Fblogs%3Fp%20_p_auth%3DmnKY6vAo%26p_p_id%3D33%26p_p_lifecycle%3D0%26p_p_col_id%3Dcolumn-2%26p_p_col_count%3D4%26p_r_%20p_564233524_categoryId%3D0&


17/251

Food price spikes inevitable speculation and droughts outweigh production

Lagi and Bar-Yam 12 Marco Lagi, Yavni Bar-Yam and Yaneer Bar-Yam, researchers at MITs NewEngland Complex Systems Institute; UPDATE July 2012 The Food Crises: The US Drought; July 23,2012; publ. by New England Complex Systems Institutehttp://necsi.edu/research/social/foodprices/updatejuly2012/food_prices_july_2012.pdf RMJ

Recent droughts in the midwesternUnited States threaten to cause global catastrophe driven by aspeculator amplified food price bubble. Here we show the effect of speculators on food prices using a va lidated quantitative model thataccurately describes historical food prices. During the last six years, high and fluctuating food prices have lead to

widespread hunger and social unrest. While the spring of 2012 had a relative dip in the food prices, a massive drought in theAmerican midwest in June and July threatens to trigger another crisis. In a previous paper, weconstructed a model that quantitatively agreed with food prices and demonstrated that, while thebehavior could not be explained by supply and demand economics, it could be parsimoniously andaccurately described by a model which included both the conversion of corn into ethanol and speculatortrend following. An update to the original paper in February 2012 demonstrated that the model previously published was predictive of the ongoing pricedynamics, and anticipated a new food crisis by the end of 2012 if adequate policy actions were not implemented. Here we provi de a second update, evaluating the

effects of the current drought on global food prices. We find that the drought may trigger the expected third food price bubbleto occur sooner, before new limits to speculation are scheduled to take effect. Reducing the amo unt of

corn that is being converted to ethanol may address the immediate crisis. Longer term, market stabilization requireslimiting financial speculation. 1A global crisis in food prices is widely recognized *1+, and the vulnerability of the limited food supply to environmental and otherdisruptions is a matter of ongoing concern. Recent food price peaks in 2007-8 and 2010-1 have resulted in food riots and are implicated in triggering widespreadrevolutions known as the Arab Spring [2]. The underlying vulnerability of the global food supply system is being tested again this summer by a severe drought in the

Midwestern United States which is responsible for a large portion of the global food supply [3, 4, 5, 6]. In a paper publishe d in September 2011 [7], we built aquantitative model that, for the first time, was able to precisely match the monthly FAO food price index

over the last 8 years. The model showed that, of all the factors proposed to be responsible for the recentdramatic spikes and fluctuations in global food prices, rapid increases in the amount of cornto-ethanolconversion and speculation on futures markets were the only factors which could justifiably be held

responsible. Each of these causes is due to particular acts of government intervention or deregulation.Thus, while the food supply and prices may be vulnerable to global population increases and environmental change, the existing price increases are due to specific

governmental policies. In order to prevent further crises in the food market, we recommended the halting ofgovernment support for ethanol conversion and the reversal of commodities market deregulation,

which enables unlimited financial speculation. Since the publication of our analysis, a few changes in these directions have been made . Atthe end of 2011, ethanol subsidies were allowed to expire [8, 9]. However, a gove rnmentguaranteed demand for 37% of the US co rn crop is still in place [10]. It isunclear what effect this partial change in policy will have on the percentage of corn con verted to ethanol, currently about 40%. New position limits on speculativeactivity by the US Commodities Futures Trading Commission are scheduled to come into effect by the end of 2012, as required by the Dodd-Frank Act [11, 12]. Itremains to be seen how effective these new regulations will be, as there are those who consider them too watered-down [13], and market participants are seekingto dilute them further [13, 14, 15, 16, 17]. I n a subsequent update published in February 2012 [18], we showed that the model continued to fit current data, up to

January 2012, which had not been available at the time of the construction of the model. We further observed that extrapolating model pricesinto the future yielded the prediction of another speculative bubble starting by the end of 2012 and causingfood prices to rise even higher than recent peaks. 2This season, the American Midwestern agricultural regionhas experienced debilitating droughts and high temperatures, the most severe in at least 50 years,leading to rapidly rising corn and wheat prices in anticipation of a poor yield [4, 5]. Here we include this as a shock in ourestablished model. We find that through the mechanism of speculative activity, the drought may trigger the thirdmassive price spike to occur earlier than otherwise expected, beginning immediately, and sooner than

could be prevented by the anticipated new regulations. This spike may raise prices well beyond anincrease justified by the reduced supply caused by the droughts. In Fig. 1 we plot our model predictions for different scenarios.The central comparison is between the drought triggered speculative bubble (red line) compared to the same shock with the speculator and ethanol model [7],without the effects of the current drought (yellow line) with the effects of the current drought (red line), and with the effects of the drought, but with speculation

reduced (green line). In all cases, corn-to-ethanol conversion is considered to be constant after Jan 2012 and stock prices and bond prices are consi dered to beconstant after July 2012. For the red and green line, drought is modeled as a shock in equilibrium prices (+3%) in July 2012. In all cases, the new optimizedparameters for the fit up to July 2012: ksd = 0.089, ksp = 1.25, equity 0 = 0.074, bonds 0 = 15.4. The speculation parameter after July 2012 is reduced to ksp =

0.3 for the green line. 3reduced speculation (green line). While the drought only causes a limited price shock, the impact onprices is amplified by the speculative activity. This shows the role of speculators using the current levelof market speculation as validated by prior analysis of food prices. The speculative bubble is modeled starting from a price


18/251

shock driven by the drought, which is expected to occur based upon existing grain price increases *5+ though it has not yet been specified by the FAO. The priceincrease then causes the upcoming price spike to come sooner than would have otherwise occurred. The level of earlier riot-inducing bubbles is reached before the

end of 2012 and prices continue to rise much higher. Without the drought (yellow line), the rise in prices would be just asdramatic, but is predicted to occur several months later, possibly in time for the new regulations to prevent it. On the other hand, if speculationwere to be curbed immediately, starting from July 2012, the model shows (green curve) that the price increase due to the droughtwould be far smaller, and would not lead to another dramatic price spike. An alternative intervention, eliminating thegovernment mandated ethanol quota for this year [20], would would result in a new market shock and could cause a sudden drop in prices. This may alleviate theimmediate concerns though its effect is subject to speculator driven band wagon effects.


19/251

Ext US Ag Fails

No spillover of U.S. tech tech barrier, intellectual property, and regulations

Pardey and Alston, 10. Philip G. Pardey is professor of science and technology policy in the

Department of Applied Economics at the University of Minnesota. Julian M. Alston is a professor in theDepartment of Agricultural and Resource Economics of the University of California, Davis, where heteaches graduate and undergraduate classes in microeconomic theory and the analysis of agriculturalmarkets and policies. January 2010. U.S. Agricultural Research in a Global Food Security Setting. AReport of the CSIS Task Force on Food Security. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)provides strategic insights and practical policy solutions to decisionmakers. CSIS conducts research andanalysis and develops policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change.http://csis.org/files/publication/100111_Pardey_USAgriRes_Web.pdf - clawanUnderfunding of agricultural R&D in developing countries is clearly problematic, and the stage is set forthe problem to worsen. In addition to the distinctive features of developing countries described above, the inadequacy of agriculturalknowledge stocks may be exacerbated by changes occurring in developed countries. Although the most immediate and tangible effect of thenew technologies and ideas stemming from research done in one country is to foster productivity growth in that country, the new technologies and ideas often spill

over and spur sizable productivity gains elsewhere in the world. I n the past, developing countries benefited considerably from technological spillovers fromdeveloped countries, in part because the bulk of the worlds agricultural science and innovation occurred in rich countries.1 3 Increasingly, spilloversfrom developed countries may not be available to developing countries in the same ways or to the sameextent. Decreasing spillover potential is caused by several related market and policy trends in developed countries. First, the types oftechnologies being developed may no longer be as readily applicable to developing countries as they were inthe past. As previously noted, developed country R&D agendas have been reoriented away from productivity gains in food staples toward other aspects of agricultural production, such as environmental effects, food quality, and the medical, energy, andindustrial uses of agricultural commodities. This growing divergence between developed-country research agendas andthe priorities of developing countries implies fewer applicable technologies that would be candidates for adaptation todeveloping countries. Second, technologies that are applicable may not be as readily accessible because ofincreasing intellectual property protection of privately owned technologies and, perhaps, more important, the expanding scopeand enforcement of biosafety regulations. Different approaches may have to be devised to make it possible for countries to achieveequivalent access to technological potential generated by other countries. Third, those technologies that are applicable andavailable are likely to require more substantial local development and adaptation, calling for moresophisticated and more extensive forms of scientific R&D than in the past. The requirement for local adaptive researchis also likely to be exacerbated as changes in global and local climate regimes add further to the need foradaptive responses to those changed agricultural production environments. In some instances developing countries may also have to extend their ownagricultural R&D efforts farther upstream, to more fundamental areas of the science. These new pressures for self -reliance in agricultural research are coming at atime when many developing countries, along with developed countries, are finding it difficult to sustain the current rates of investment in agricultural research.

US alone cant resolve multilateral institutions solve best

OGFS, 9. Office of Global Food Security, US Department of State, September 28, 2009. Global Hunger

and Food Security Initiative: Consultation Document.http://www.state.gov/s/globalfoodsecurity/129952.htm clawanU.S. assistance cannot reach every country that needs assistance; multilateral institutions provide anopportunity to partner with the global community to make a global impact. Multilateral institutions canefficiently deliver global resources for food security, complement bilateral activities, and strengthen in-country donor coor dinationprocesses. Multilateral development banks and funds, such as the World Bank, the regional developmentbanks, and the International Fund for Agriculture and Development (IFAD) also have important comparative advantages thatcomplement bilateral programs. For example, they can undertake large-scale transportation projects or support intra-regional transportation corridors that boosttrade flows and reduce the costs and time to ship inputs and crops. In addition, multilateral institutions such as the UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)


20/251

and the World Food Program (WFP) have significant technical experience that can be leveraged to help implement a multi -stakeholder strategy. Multilateralinstitutions, such as the UN High Level Task Force, will also play an important global coordination role.

US measures dont solve they only result in the exploitation of the South by the

North

Gimenez, 8. Eric Holt-Gimnez, Ph.D., is Executive Director of Food First/Institute for Food andDevelopment Policy and analyst for the Americas Program of the Center for International Policy.October 23, 2008. The world food crisis: what is behind it and what we can do.

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/09/editorials/holt-gimenez.htm clawanThe destruction of southern food systems occurred through a series of northern economic developmentprojects: The Green Revolution (1960-90) was a campaign led by the international agricultural research centers that aimed tomodernize farming in the developing world. Impressive gains in national productivity were accompaniedby the steady monopolization of seed and input markets by northern corporations. The highly celebrated Asian andMexican "miracles" masked the loss of 90% of agro-biodiversity, the massive reduction of water tables, salinization and erosionof soils, and the displacement of millions of peasants to fragile hillsides, shrinking for ests, and urban slums. Excluding China, theGreen Revolutionincreased food per capita by 11%. However, the number of hungry people also increased by 11%. StructuralAdjustment Programs (SAPs) of the 1980s-90s imposed by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund followed, dismantling marketing boards,eliminating price guarantees, closing entire research and extension systems, breaking down tariffs, andderegulating agricultural markets. Southern countries were flooded with subsidized grain from the U.S.and Europe that was sold at prices far under the costs of production. This destroyed national agriculturalmarkets and tied southern food security to global markets dominated by rich northern countries. Regionalfree trade agreements and the World Trade Organization "The idea that developing countries should feed themselves is an anachronism from a bygone era. Theycould better ensure their food security by relying on U.S. agricultural products, which are available, in most cases at lower cost." U.S. Agriculture Secretary JohnBlock, 1986 The rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO) cemented the policies o f the Structural Adjustment Programs in in ternational treaties that overrode

national laws. WTO rules, like the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and the General Agreement on Trade in Services,further consolidated northern control over southern agricultural economies. The global South was forcedto strip away genuine protections for smallholders and local producers to open its markets to northern goods while northernmarkets remained largely protected through a combination of both tariff and non-tariff barriers .Regional free trade agreements such as NAFTA and CAFTA, pushed through by the North, continued trade liberalization,

forcing southern farmers out of business and making countries of the South dependent on northernfood imports.

American aid fails to resolve food shortages the entire process is dominated by self-

interest

Gimenez, 8. Eric Holt-Gimnez, Ph.D., is Executive Director of Food First/Institute for Food andDevelopment Policy and analyst for the Americas Program of the Center for International Policy.October 23, 2008. The world food crisis: what is behind it and what we can do.

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/09/editorials/holt-gimenez.htm clawan

World food aid in 2007 reached its lowest level since 1961 (5.9 million tons), precisely when more people than

ever are going hungry. Why? Because when prices are highand food is unavailable to the poorfood aiddecreases. When prices are lowand food is abundantfood aid increases. Sound backward? That is because food aid responds to grainprices on the international marketnot to the food needs of poor countries. When the price of cerealsis low, northern countries and transnational grain companies seek to sell their commodities through food aid programs.When the price is high, they prefer to sell their grains on the international market. When more people suffer from

hunger, less food aid arrives. Global food aid is dominated by U.S. food aid , whose objective since 1954 has been

to "lay the basis for a permanent expansion of our exports of agricultural products with lasting benefitsto ourselves and peoples of other lands." Apart from other geopolitical goals, food aid functions as a sponge to absorb


21/251

commodities surpluses in the North and dispose of it at prices below the cost of production in the South. Food aid is monopolized by four companies that control 84% of the transport and delivery. Further, 50-90% of global food aid is conditioned on bilateral tradeagreements. USAID, for example, forces recipient countries to accept genetically modified grains. In 2007, 99.3% of U.S. food aid was "in-kind," that is, food

procured in the United States and shipped to recipient countries (rather than provisions of cash or coupons for purchasing fo od closer to recipients). Thecrippling of food systems in the global South opened up entire continents to the expansion of industrialagri-foods from the North. This expansion devastated local agro-biodiversity and emptied the countryside

of valuable natural and human resources. But as long as cheap, subsidized grain from the industrial North kept flowing, the industrial agri-foodscomplex grew, consolidating control of the world's food sys tems in the hands of fewer and fewer grain, seed, chemical, and pe troleum companies. Today threecompanies, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), Cargill, and Bunge control 90% of the world's grain trade. Chemical giant Monsanto controls one-fifth of seedproduction, while Bayer Crop Science, Syngenta, and BASF control half of the total agro -chemical market.

Warming makes food insecurity inevitable

Vidal 13 John Vidal, environment editor for The Guardian; Climate change: how a warming world is athreat to our food supplies; Apr 13 2013; The Guardian: The Observer

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/13/climate-change-threat-food-supplies RMJDrought, rocketing bread prices, food and water shortages have all blighted parts of the Middle East. Analysts at the Centre for AmericanProgress in Washington say a combination of food shortages and other environmental factors exacerbated the already tense politics of the

region. As the Observer reports today, an as-yet unpublished US government study indicates that the world needsto prepare for much more of the same, as food prices spiral and longstanding agricultural practices are

disrupted by climate change. "We should expect much more political destabilisation of countries as it bites,"says Richard Choularton, a policy officer in the UN's World Food Programme climate change office. "What isdifferent now from 20 years ago is that far more people are living in places with a higher climatic risk; 650 millionpeople now live in arid or semi-arid areas where floods and droughts and price shocks are expected to have the most impact. "Therecent crises in the Horn ofAfrica and Sahel may be becoming the new normal. Droughts are expected tobecome more frequent. Studies suggest anything up to 200 million more food-insecure people by 2050or an additional 24 million malnourished children. In parts of Africa we already have a protracted andgrowing humanitarian disaster. Climate change is a creeping disaster," he said. The Mary Robinson climate justicefoundation is hosting a major conference in Dublin this week. Research to be presented there will say that rising incomes and growthin the global population, expected to create 2 billion more mouths to feed by 2050, will drive food prices higher by 40-50%. Climate change may add a further 50% to maize prices and slightly less to wheat, rice and oil seeds. "We knowpopulation will grow and incomes increase, but also that temperatures will rise and rainfall patterns willchange. We must prepare today for higher temperatures in all sectors," said Gerald Nelson, a senioreconomist with the International Food Policy Research Institute in Washington. All of the studies suggest theworst impacts will be felt by the poorest people. Robinson, the former Irish president, said: "Climate change is already having a domino effecton food and nutritional security for the world's poorest and most vulnerable people. Child malnutrition is predicted to increase by 20% by 2050.Climate change impacts will disproportionately fall on people living in tropical regions, and particularly on the most vulnerable and marginalisedpopulation groups. This is the injustice of climate change the worst of the impacts are felt by those who contributed least to causing theproblem." But from Europe to the US to Asia, no population will remain insulated from the huge changes in food production that the rest of the

century will bring. Frank Rijsberman, head of the world's leading Cgiar crop research stations, said: "There's alot of complacency in rich countries about climate change. We must understand that instability is inevitable. Wealready see a lot of refugees. Perhaps if a lot of people come over on boats to Europe or the US that would wake them up."


22/251

Ext UK Solves Food Security

UK ag industry solves best for environment proactive initiatives to respond to

climate change

Defra, 8. Department for Environment, the UK government department responsible for policy andregulations on environmental, food and rural issues. Our priorities are to grow the rural economy,improve the environment and safeguard animal and plant health.Food and Rural Affairs. July 2008.Ensuring the UKs Food Security in a Changing World. http://www.ifr.ac.uk/waste/Reports/DEFRA-Ensuring-UK-Food-Security-in-a-changing-world-170708.pdf clawan4.47. Defra is already taking action to help ensure UK farmers and food producers are aware of how theyare likely to be affected by climate change and what they need to do to manage the risks, botheconomic and environmental. A cross-Government Adapting to Climate Change Programme has been set up, to bring together work alreadyunderway, and to co-ordinate and drive forward the development of 26 www.berr.gov.uk. The differences and similarities between energy security and foodsecurity are set out in Defra, Food Security and the UK: an evidence and analysis paper, pp. 73 -4 27 www.defra.gov.uk ENSURING THE UKS FOOD SECURITY IN ACHANGING WORLD 26 Government's work on adaptation in the future. We will shortly launch an Adapting to Climate Change website, which will provide further

information about this Programme and which will also help users find out more about how the climate is changing, and what the y can do to adapt. 4.48. Defrahas also launched a new project, as part of its Farming for the Future programme, to specifically address climate changeadaptation by agriculture. The overarching aim of the project is to make the agriculture sectorenvironmentally and economically sustainable in a changing climate; and to make agricultural ecosystems resilient to climatechange by protecting, restoring and enhancing ecosystem services (e.g. biodiversity, water purification, flood management). This willhelp both to maintain the current multiple benefits we obtain from agricultural land and to manage the broaderimpacts of climate change on the UK as a whole.The project is supported by a continuing programme ofresearch on agriculture and climate change.

UK ag industry key to global food security international aid and food markets

Defra, 8. Department for Environment, the UK government department responsible for policy andregulations on environmental, food and rural issues. Our priorities are to grow the rural economy,

improve the environment and safeguard animal and plant health.Food and Rural Affairs. July 2008.Ensuring the UKs Food Security in a Changing World. http://www.ifr.ac.uk/waste/Reports/DEFRA-Ensuring-UK-Food-Security-in-a-changing-world-170708.pdf clawan5. Conclusion 5.1. The UK currently enjoys a high level of national food security, which reflects the diverse and abundant supplyof foodstuffs available in our supermarkets. We produce much of our food ourselves, and because the UK is a developed economy, we are able toaccess the food we need on the global market. 5.2. The recent increases in global food prices have, however, focused the attention ofGovernments around the world on short-term supply and long-term challenges to our food syste m. Rising global demand, climate change, high oil prices and newpressures on land such as biofuels have undermined global food security. These pressures are compounded by trade distorting s ubsidies and protectionist policies

imposed in the US, EU and other countries 5.3. To address the global food price increases, the UK has committed to asubstantial aid package to help the most vulnerable countries and called on the G8 to take coordinatedaction.The G8 has agreed to invest over $10 billion to meet not just immediate humanitarian needs including increases in food aid but toimprove food security and increase agricultural productivity over the longer term. This needs to be done in anenvironmentally sustainable way to maintain the natural resource base for the future. It makes sense to encourage food production in Africa, as a lack of productionglobally will force up prices which will affect consumers in the UK too. 5.4. The UK believes that effectively functioning markets arefundamental to ensuring global food security. The Government is committed to continuing to l iberalise markets through the DohaDevelopment Round of trade negotiations and reform of the EUs Common Agricultural Policy. 5.5. We believe that global food s ecurity means everyone havingenough to eat, and we have committed to substantial investment in research and development to enable developing countries to improve their food production.Climate change presents one of the greatest threats to increasing agricultural productivity and the Government is leading the EU and the world in tackling climatechange. In addition, we are investing in research and development and capacity building to increase resilience in countries that will be most affected by climate

change. ENSURING THE UKS FOOD SECURITY IN A CHANGING WORLD 28 5.6. One of the most important contributions the UK canmake to global, and our own, food security is having a thriving and productive agriculture sector in theUK, operating in a global market and responding to what consumers want. The Government is


23/251

committed to supporting the agricultural sector including through investment in research anddevelopment, support on skills and ensuring the UK benefits from EU support under Rural Development Programmes.


24/251


25/251

Ext AT: Food Prices Impact High Prices Good

High food prices help long term economic sustainability

FAOUN 08 (HIGH-LEVEL CONFERENCE ON WORLD FOOD SECURITY: THE CHALLENGES OF CLIMATE

CHANGE AND BIOENERGY; http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload /foodclimate/HLCdocs/HLC08-inf-1-E.pdf) HS

The current commodity (agricultural and non-agricultural) price boom brings opportunities for increasedgovernment revenue and private sector income in exporting countries. At the same time, it presents achallenge as to how governments can best allocate windfall gains between consumption andinvestment. Thus, decisions made during the price boom are decisive for economic growth duringperiods of low prices. Several research efforts have identified a resource curse, meaning natural

resourceabundant countries tend to grow more slowly than resource-scarce countries. However recentresearch points out that the impact on long-term growth varies with the type of export commodity(Collier and Goderis, 2007; Collier, 2007). Specifically for the African context, the resource curse relatesprimarily to oil and non-agricultural commodity price booms, while booming prices on agriculturalcommodities may, in fact, lead to higher economic growth both in the short and long run. Where thepublic sector derives a large share of its revenue through taxation of pricevolatile non-agriculturalcommodities, research has shown that such revenues are allocated in an unbalanced way that favoursshort-term consumption or relatively unproductive investment rather than savings and soundinvestments that will protect the economy during periods of lower prices. As a result, short-term growthis reversed when prices decline in the long run. On the other hand, agricultural export commoditiescompete for land and other input factors with other crops, thus limiting opportunities for rent seeking.Additionally, farmers make expenditure and investment decisions for additional income generated by anagricultural commodity boom that consider long-term consumption paths, investment opportunities,etc. This tends to lead to both short-term economic growth and longer-term economic growth. Thepolicy implication is that the present agricultural commodity price boom provides an important

opportunity for stimulating both short- and long-term growth if it is not, imprudently, taxed away and ifthe public sector provides the necessary resources in the form of public goods which will increaseagricultural productivity.
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload%20/foodclimate/HLCdocs/HLC08-inf-1-E.pdfhttp://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload%20/foodclimate/HLCdocs/HLC08-inf-1-E.pdfhttp://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload%20/foodclimate/HLCdocs/HLC08-inf-1-E.pdfhttp://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload%20/foodclimate/HLCdocs/HLC08-inf-1-E.pdf


26/251

Ext AT: Food Prices Impact Alt-Causes

Alt cause to Ag price spike Laundry list

Banse et al 08 (Dutch Ministry of Agriculture; Why Are Current World Food Prices So High?http://www.agripressworld.com/_STUDIOEMMA_UPLOADS/downloads/opr24Y32.pdf) HS

What explains the recent increase in agricultural prices? A combination of record low global inventorylevels, weather induced supply side shocks, surging outside investor influence, record oil prices andstructural changes in demand for grains and oilseeds due to biofuels have created the high prices. Thequestion is whether it is a coincidence that the past and current high price levels coincide with high oilprices or whether other reasons for the current price peak are more important. 12 Effects on the supplyside Poor harvests in Australia, Ukraine and Europe for wheat and barley. According to FAO statistics,these three regions contributed on average 51% of total world barley production and 27% of total worldwheat production for the period 200592006. Figure 8 Deviation from trend in yields (wheat and coarsegrains) in tons/ha Source: OECD and FAO Secretariats. Lower harvests in wheat and barley are morethan compensated by a bumper harvest for corn worldwide. o Therefore, world cereal productionincreased in total even in 2007. o The bumper harvest in corn kept corn prices low and the wheat9cornspread increased significantly (see Figure 3). o Only recently have corn prices also strongly increased. 13 Higher energy prices lead to higher food prices as costs (e.g. fertilizer, processing, and transport)increase. Higher transport costs induce higher price effects as distances increase. CAP policies such asmandatory set9aside regulation or production quota restrained supply. Furthermore, there was achange from price to income support and compensatory payments became decoupled, set aside wasintroduced and export subsidies were diminished. Some of these measures limited supply within the EU.However, the general aim of the last CAP reforms was an enforcement of farmers ability to react to

market signals instead of following policy signals given by market price support. Measures aimed torestrict supply, e.g. production quota or set9aside requirements, are instruments designed for a world

with declining prices, but which may act to reinforce prices in case of food shortages. Low prices in thelast decades did not pro

Documents

Mexico Guest Workers Neg-BHHM-SDI 2013-Paperless