Report from World Watch
0 views
Skip to first unread message
jesse.s...@mchsi.com
Sep 8, 2011, 11:33:08 AM9/8/11
to economic subcommittee
I noticed this today -- can't quite get to the article on their site but it seems very relevant to our work. Maybe Jennifer could ask for the article - it is free to the press maybe they would give it to Leonardo.
Jesse
--
Jesse
Valuing Nature’s Services Today Is an Investment in the Future
New article identifies ways in which payments for ecosystem services (PES) help protect biodiversity and mitigate climate change
Washington, D.C.—Countries
around the world are embracing “payments for ecosystem services” (PES)
as a verifiable approach to protecting biological diversity and
mitigating climate change, according to research conducted by the
Worldwatch Institute for the publication Vital Signs Online.
PES are financial arrangements designed to protect the many benefits
that are provided by the natural environment. They include payments for
projects that invest in biodiversity and watershed protection, ecosystem
restoration, and carbon capture in forests.
“Nearly 60 percent of all ecosystem services are being degraded or used
in an unsustainable manner,” said Alexander Ochs, Director of Climate
and Energy at Worldwatch. “With PES, we can put a monetary value on
these important services, from water filtration to carbon sequestration,
to ensure that they are being properly sustained for the benefit of
both people and the planet.” PES schemes aim to encourage a net increase
in benefits that would not otherwise have occurred without the
financial incentive, a concept known as providing “additionality.”
At the international level, two initiatives—the United Nations’ Reducing
Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) Programme
and the World Bank Forest Carbon Partnership Facility—were established
in 2008 to assist in the development of a global PES scheme that would
compensate developing countries for their efforts to conserve tropical
forests, which act as important carbon “sinks.” The international
community has discussed scaling up REDD finance to $30 billion per year.
Several wealthier governments, including Norway and Germany, are
providing funds to help developing countries build the capacity to
handle a REDD market as well as to provide financial incentives to the
best performers.
In the absence of a fully defined REDD marketplace, the primary markets
for ecosystem services are currently in the areas of watershed and
biodiversity protection, with a combined global value of at least $11
billion in 2008. The largest national markets for services to protect
and enhance water quality are China and the United States, respectively.
Worldwide, payments for biodiversity totaled $2.4 billion to $4 billion
in 2010. Although PES growth has slowed in countries that already have
programs in place for biodiversity protection, other countries are
adopting new programs and policy frameworks for biodiversity payment
mechanisms. “In 2010, at least 45 payment programs for biodiversity were
operational across the world and 27 programs were in development,” said
Will Bierbower, the author of the article and a former Climate and
Energy researcher at Worldwatch.
Factors driving the development of PES schemes include the scale of the
ecosystem service being provided, the number of buyers and sellers
involved, and the degree to which there is an immediate financial
payoff. The design of a PES arrangement is shaped in part by the
prevailing political, cultural, and institutional arrangements in a
country or region; however, governments have typically been the key
players in establishing most PES arrangements.
“China’s Sloping Land Conversion Program is a good example of a
government-backed PES scheme that was enacted in tandem with
regulations,” said Bierbower. “In 1999, the government started paying
farmers to restore land to its original ecological state, following
decades of mismanagement that had led to topsoil erosion and downstream
flooding. In the first seven years, rural farmers received some $7.7
billion in payments and enrolled some 7.2 billion hectares of cropland
in what has become one of the largest PES schemes in the world.”
Further highlights from the article:
- Globally, payments for watershed services that protect and enhance water quality were worth an estimated $9.25 billion in 2008.
- Payments for biodiversity protection, restoration, and management were worth an estimated $1.8 billion to $2.9 billion in 2008. By 2010, these payments had reached $2.4 to $4 billion worldwide.
- PES carbon sequestration projects in the world’s forests were worth an estimated $37 million in 2008, up from $7.6 million in 2006.
- The volume of transactions for carbon sequestration projects in forests increased from 5.1 megatons of carbon dioxide in 2007 to 5.3 megatons in 2008.
- In the United States, PES transactions total $1.5 billion to $2.4 billion annually.
- Deforestation, which occurs primarily in tropical forest regions, accounts for an estimated 12–20 percent of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.
Notes to Press:
To obtain a free copy of this article please contact Supriya Kumar at sku...@worldwatch.org.
About the Worldwatch Institute: Worldwatch is an independent research organization based in Washington, D.C. that works on energy, resource, and environmental issues. The Institute’s State of the World report is published annually in more than 20 languages. For more information, visit www.worldwatch.org.
--
Ryan Rivard
Sep 9, 2011, 11:27:52 AM9/9/11
to scs001econo...@googlegroups.com
I also recently read this article and it might be interesting for what we are doing, if you haven't already seen it.
--
Ryan Rivard
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sustainable Ag Standard Economic Sustainability Criteria Development Subcommittee" group.
To post to this group, send email to scs001econo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to scs001economic_cr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/scs001economic_criteria?hl=en.
Ryan Rivard
Iroquois Valley Farms, LLC
_________________________
IMPORTANT: This e-mail message is not intended to be binding or relied upon and, without limitation on the foregoing, shall not create, waive or modify any right, obligation or liability, or be construed to contain or be an electronic signature, to constitute a notice, approval, waiver or election, or to form, modify, amend or terminate any contract. The information contained in this message is confidential and is intended only for the named addressee(s). This message may be protected by the attorney/client privilege. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient (or the individual responsible for the delivery of this message to an intended recipient), please be advised that any re-use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error and then delete it.
Thank you.
Eric Landen
Sep 9, 2011, 11:59:09 AM9/9/11
to scs001econo...@googlegroups.com
Thanks Jesse & Ryan, both these articles are dialed right in to the Econ work ---
Also FYI: as one of my team's consulting projects, am setting up a pilot PES (Payments for Ecosystem Services) program where the regional agricultural community will be a major seller of sustainable-ag-driven ecosystem services to buyers elsewhere in the local watershed --- they might be interested in test-driving components of our Sustainable Ag Standard and it might be a good demo/showcase-project for the overall standard (the PES project is in the feasibility-study/planning stage and won't get going until 2012 at earliest, so the timing might be perfect as our Standard moves along...)
Will keep you posted as this evolving story develops...
-- Eric
Hodg...@epamail.epa.gov
Sep 13, 2011, 12:20:29 PM9/13/11
to scs001econo...@googlegroups.com
Econ subcommittee members,
With Eric out for a while due to a serious family medical issue, I thought I would try to keep our process moving. Below is a proposed agenda for tomorrow's call; please reply with any suggested additions or changes. Thanks, and I look forward to hearing from you on the call.
Agenda,
Introductions (all, 5 minutes)
Announcements -- anything that would be beneficial for the group to know (all, 10 minutes)
Review -- Have we captured the important principles and criteria for the economic aspect of a sustainable agricultural system? Anything missing? Redundant? Excessive? (discussion, 20 minutes)
Next steps: defining metrics and tiers (30 minutes)
Next steps: filling in remaining columns -- who, which criteria, by when? (discussion, 15 minutes)
Wrap up and action items (Don, 5 minutes)
_________________________________
Don Hodge | Agriculture Program
Region 9 | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street (AIR-6) | San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 972-3240 | hodg...@epa.gov
With Eric out for a while due to a serious family medical issue, I thought I would try to keep our process moving. Below is a proposed agenda for tomorrow's call; please reply with any suggested additions or changes. Thanks, and I look forward to hearing from you on the call.
Agenda,
Introductions (all, 5 minutes)
Announcements -- anything that would be beneficial for the group to know (all, 10 minutes)
Review -- Have we captured the important principles and criteria for the economic aspect of a sustainable agricultural system? Anything missing? Redundant? Excessive? (discussion, 20 minutes)
Next steps: defining metrics and tiers (30 minutes)
Next steps: filling in remaining columns -- who, which criteria, by when? (discussion, 15 minutes)
Wrap up and action items (Don, 5 minutes)
_________________________________
Don Hodge | Agriculture Program
Region 9 | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street (AIR-6) | San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 972-3240 | hodg...@epa.gov
Ryan Rivard
Sep 20, 2011, 11:24:07 AM9/20/11
to scs001econo...@googlegroups.com
Hey Don, I thought that this blog was an interesting read, maybe you could pass it on to the others.
Thanks
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 11:20 AM, <Hodg...@epamail.epa.gov> wrote:
Beginning Farmers
Sep 20, 2011, 1:42:28 PM9/20/11
to scs001econo...@googlegroups.com
Ryan,
Please don't take this personally. I'm glad you're sharing info. with the group, and I hope the following statement is not taken as an attack on Whole Foods specifically, or on your attempt to highlight the positive elements of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990.
But I think it's rather ironic that WF features a picture of an enormous monoculture field (can't identify the crop) without a single weed as part of their "reasons to choose organic". I have been on a lot of organic farms and have never seen a weedless field like the one shown unless farmworkers have just been through it.
I also think the picture of the happy farmer growing Kale in the desert was a poor choice if the company really wants to promote itself as supporting sustainable agriculture. The enormous Ogallala aquifer has lost 10% of it's volume in the last 50 years. The Colorado river, once powerful enough to carve out the Grand Canyon, no longer reaches the sea during much of the year. And the environmental and social cost of the dams and pipelines which allow California to produce the majority of the nation's fruits, nuts, and vegetables (as well as the tenuousness of the water they provide) are well documented.
I've publicly defended WF in their decision to support of the Food Safety Modernization Act with amendments that protect small farmers, and don't wish to call out the company in particular as a "bad actor". But I think that WV does itself a disservice by highlighting vast desert monocultures in promoting the "earth friendly methods" its growers use.
I've been indirectly implicated in the critique of the Leo Standards Committee as "stacked with organic proponents", but it seems this is a good time to make it clear that I don't believe "organic" and "sustainable" are necessarily synonymous. The pictures in the WF post do an excellent job of making a case for my reasoning with regard to this issue.
Taylor ReidTaylor Reid
Doctoral Candidate in Community Food & Agriculture, Michigan State University
Michigan Organic Food and Farm Alliance
Founder & Administrator BeginningFarmers.org
Please don't take this personally. I'm glad you're sharing info. with the group, and I hope the following statement is not taken as an attack on Whole Foods specifically, or on your attempt to highlight the positive elements of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990.
But I think it's rather ironic that WF features a picture of an enormous monoculture field (can't identify the crop) without a single weed as part of their "reasons to choose organic". I have been on a lot of organic farms and have never seen a weedless field like the one shown unless farmworkers have just been through it.
I also think the picture of the happy farmer growing Kale in the desert was a poor choice if the company really wants to promote itself as supporting sustainable agriculture. The enormous Ogallala aquifer has lost 10% of it's volume in the last 50 years. The Colorado river, once powerful enough to carve out the Grand Canyon, no longer reaches the sea during much of the year. And the environmental and social cost of the dams and pipelines which allow California to produce the majority of the nation's fruits, nuts, and vegetables (as well as the tenuousness of the water they provide) are well documented.
I've publicly defended WF in their decision to support of the Food Safety Modernization Act with amendments that protect small farmers, and don't wish to call out the company in particular as a "bad actor". But I think that WV does itself a disservice by highlighting vast desert monocultures in promoting the "earth friendly methods" its growers use.
I've been indirectly implicated in the critique of the Leo Standards Committee as "stacked with organic proponents", but it seems this is a good time to make it clear that I don't believe "organic" and "sustainable" are necessarily synonymous. The pictures in the WF post do an excellent job of making a case for my reasoning with regard to this issue.
Taylor Reid
Doctoral Candidate in Community Food & Agriculture, Michigan State University
Michigan Organic Food and Farm Alliance
Founder & Administrator BeginningFarmers.org
Hodg...@epamail.epa.gov
Sep 21, 2011, 5:50:59 PM9/21/11
to scs001econo...@googlegroups.com
Hi, all. Apologies if this is old
news but I just ran across it.
EcoAgricultural Partners teamed up with USDA's Office of Environmental Markets on the "Farm of the Future" initiative to document case studies of payments for ecosystem services in agriculture.
EcoAgriculture Partners also publishes an on-line PES newsletter with an international focus but also some U.S. content, such as segment on a GHG emission accounting protocol for rice production in the September 2011 edition.
EcoAgricultural Partners teamed up with USDA's Office of Environmental Markets on the "Farm of the Future" initiative to document case studies of payments for ecosystem services in agriculture.
EcoAgriculture Partners also publishes an on-line PES newsletter with an international focus but also some U.S. content, such as segment on a GHG emission accounting protocol for rice production in the September 2011 edition.
Hodg...@epamail.epa.gov
Sep 23, 2011, 2:41:39 PM9/23/11
to scs001econo...@googlegroups.com
I don't want to make this debate more fraught, but I think this is an
important subject, worth some discussion. A premise of our work in this
process is that "organic" and "sustainable" are not synonymous, but the
issue here seems to be whether "small", referring to size of
agricultural operation, is prerequistite to either. If I misconstrued
that, you can ignore the rest of this.
Much of our work on this standard involves definition and specification,
and I'm not sure how we would define "small" for the purpose of the
standard. But we have defined many other criteria for agricultural
sustainability.
For a case study, let's look at Cal-Organic Farms. I wonder if the
photos are from their acreage near Bakersfield, California. The
Cal-Organics web site says that they farm "thousands of certified
organic acres" in the southern San Joaquin, Coachella, and Imperial
valleys and other locations (I heard 15,000 acres from a competing
organic farmer). They mention California Certified Organic Farms as
their certifier. They supply major supermarket chains including but
certainly not limited to Whole Foods. They certainly don't fit the
"local production for local consumption" model.
But does that necessarily mean their operation is not sustainable? I
would love to ask them: How many acres is the biggest farm and field?
What is the average field size? The typical size? How do they control
weeds? How do they control other pests? Where do they source plant
nutrients? What is their irrigation water source? What is their
nutrient and water use efficiency? Soil organic matter percentage? How
many workers do they employ, seasonally and year-round? Do they receive
a living wage? Health benefits? Et cetera. The answers to these
questions would indicate the sustainability of their operation.
And how does all this compare to parent company Grimmway Farms'
conventional production? How does it compare to the 75-acre diversified
organic operation nearby? These answers might help answer the question
of whether large-scale production, even organic production, can be
sustainable. Unfortunately, I don't have any contacts at Cal-Organic.
Of course, a standard of agricultural sustainability such as the one
we're trying to develop would cover these questions and more, so another
way to address that question would be through sustainability audits of
these operations. I'm sure I would learn a lot from the results.
My two cents. Thanks for raising the issue. I'm interested in your
thoughts.
Don
_________________________________
(Embedded image moved to file: pic21292.gif)
(Embedded image moved to file: pic20237.gif)
+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to scs001economic_criteria
+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to scs001economic_criteria
+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
important subject, worth some discussion. A premise of our work in this
process is that "organic" and "sustainable" are not synonymous, but the
issue here seems to be whether "small", referring to size of
agricultural operation, is prerequistite to either. If I misconstrued
that, you can ignore the rest of this.
Much of our work on this standard involves definition and specification,
and I'm not sure how we would define "small" for the purpose of the
standard. But we have defined many other criteria for agricultural
sustainability.
For a case study, let's look at Cal-Organic Farms. I wonder if the
photos are from their acreage near Bakersfield, California. The
Cal-Organics web site says that they farm "thousands of certified
organic acres" in the southern San Joaquin, Coachella, and Imperial
valleys and other locations (I heard 15,000 acres from a competing
organic farmer). They mention California Certified Organic Farms as
their certifier. They supply major supermarket chains including but
certainly not limited to Whole Foods. They certainly don't fit the
"local production for local consumption" model.
But does that necessarily mean their operation is not sustainable? I
would love to ask them: How many acres is the biggest farm and field?
What is the average field size? The typical size? How do they control
weeds? How do they control other pests? Where do they source plant
nutrients? What is their irrigation water source? What is their
nutrient and water use efficiency? Soil organic matter percentage? How
many workers do they employ, seasonally and year-round? Do they receive
a living wage? Health benefits? Et cetera. The answers to these
questions would indicate the sustainability of their operation.
And how does all this compare to parent company Grimmway Farms'
conventional production? How does it compare to the 75-acre diversified
organic operation nearby? These answers might help answer the question
of whether large-scale production, even organic production, can be
sustainable. Unfortunately, I don't have any contacts at Cal-Organic.
Of course, a standard of agricultural sustainability such as the one
we're trying to develop would cover these questions and more, so another
way to address that question would be through sustainability audits of
these operations. I'm sure I would learn a lot from the results.
My two cents. Thanks for raising the issue. I'm interested in your
thoughts.
Don
_________________________________
(Embedded image moved to file: pic21292.gif)
Don Hodge | Agriculture Program
Region 9 | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street (AIR-6) | San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 972-3240 | hodg...@epa.gov
Region 9 | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street (AIR-6) | San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 972-3240 | hodg...@epa.gov
Don Hodge | Agriculture Program
Region 9 | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street (AIR-6) | San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 972-3240 | hodg...@epa.gov
From: Eric Landen <er...@landenconsulting.com>
To: scs001econo...@googlegroups.com
Date: 09/13/2011 08:17 AM
Subject: Re: Report from World Watch
Sent by: scs001econo...@googlegroups.com
Region 9 | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
75 Hawthorne Street (AIR-6) | San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 972-3240 | hodg...@epa.gov
From: Eric Landen <er...@landenconsulting.com>
To: scs001econo...@googlegroups.com
Date: 09/13/2011 08:17 AM
Subject: Re: Report from World Watch
Sent by: scs001econo...@googlegroups.com
About the Worldwatch Institute: Worldwatch is an independent research
organization based in Washington, D.C. that works on energy,
resource, and environmental issues. The Institute’s State of the
World report is published annually in more than 20 languages. For
more information, visit www.worldwatch.org.
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Sustainable Ag Standard Economic Sustainability Criteria
Development Subcommittee" group.
To post to this group, send email to
scs001econo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to scs001economic_criteria
organization based in Washington, D.C. that works on energy,
resource, and environmental issues. The Institute’s State of the
World report is published annually in more than 20 languages. For
more information, visit www.worldwatch.org.
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Sustainable Ag Standard Economic Sustainability Criteria
Development Subcommittee" group.
To post to this group, send email to
scs001econo...@googlegroups.com.
+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/scs001economic_criteria?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Sustainable Ag Standard Economic Sustainability Criteria
Development Subcommittee" group.
To post to this group, send email to
scs001econo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to scs001economic_criteria
http://groups.google.com/group/scs001economic_criteria?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Sustainable Ag Standard Economic Sustainability Criteria
Development Subcommittee" group.
To post to this group, send email to
scs001econo...@googlegroups.com.
+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/scs001economic_criteria?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Sustainable Ag Standard Economic Sustainability Criteria
Development Subcommittee" group.
To post to this group, send email to
scs001econo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to scs001economic_criteria
http://groups.google.com/group/scs001economic_criteria?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Sustainable Ag Standard Economic Sustainability Criteria
Development Subcommittee" group.
To post to this group, send email to
scs001econo...@googlegroups.com.
+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/scs001economic_criteria?hl=en.
--
Taylor Reid
Doctoral Candidate in Community Food & Agriculture, Michigan State
University
Michigan Organic Food and Farm Alliance
Founder & Administrator BeginningFarmers.org
http://groups.google.com/group/scs001economic_criteria?hl=en.
--
Taylor Reid
Doctoral Candidate in Community Food & Agriculture, Michigan State
University
Michigan Organic Food and Farm Alliance
Founder & Administrator BeginningFarmers.org
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Sustainable Ag Standard Economic Sustainability Criteria
Development Subcommittee" group.
To post to this group, send email to
scs001econo...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to scs001economic_criteria
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Sustainable Ag Standard Economic Sustainability Criteria
Development Subcommittee" group.
To post to this group, send email to
scs001econo...@googlegroups.com.
+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
jesse.s...@mchsi.com
Sep 23, 2011, 3:24:30 PM9/23/11
to scs001economic criteria
Hi Don and Tayler-
If there is room for the commodity agricultural growers in Iowa in the standard we are developing, there is definitely room for Cal-Organic. I hope what we are doing doesn't stop at the small farm -40% of the farms in Iowa are less than 100 acres but almost 40% of farms also earn less than $10,000/yr- if we want to make change we need large operations too.
I agree with Taylor that organic doesn't necessarily mean sustainable but I also think there is a good chance that organic farmers are already following many sustainable practices.
Jesse
If there is room for the commodity agricultural growers in Iowa in the standard we are developing, there is definitely room for Cal-Organic. I hope what we are doing doesn't stop at the small farm -40% of the farms in Iowa are less than 100 acres but almost 40% of farms also earn less than $10,000/yr- if we want to make change we need large operations too.
I agree with Taylor that organic doesn't necessarily mean sustainable but I also think there is a good chance that organic farmers are already following many sustainable practices.
Jesse
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to scs001economic_cr...@googlegroups.com.
Beginning Farmers
Sep 26, 2011, 8:37:23 AM9/26/11
to scs001econo...@googlegroups.com
Don and Jesse,
My comments were primarily related to the suggestion in the article, as I interpreted it, that the "organic standard" itself makes agriculture inherently more sustainable. My main concerns (in terms of long term economic sustainability) were not related to the size of a particular farm, but to several issues that Don alludes to above: 1) the size of a field growing a single crop. We may have to think hard about how we reward crop diversity on farms of different sizes. A 15,000 acre farm might grow 30 different crops, but if they are all being grown on 500 acre fields then the ability of diversity to mitigate risk from pest outbreaks or weather events may not be ameliorated by their diversity to the extent that it is for a 150 acre farm growing growing 30 crops on 5 acre fields. 2) Desert agriculture and the increasing cost/decreasing availability of water resources needs to be considered. 3) Labor costs are a big question mark, since we are already experiencing a labor shortage in the Michigan vegetable industry and it looks like the house is ready to pass the E-Verify Bill without a provision for exempting agriculture (http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/09/mandatory-e-verify-bill-looks-headed-for-house-passage/).
Also, now that you mention farm size, I think it may be important to note that economic sustainability is not unrelated to the value of a crop/crops. I haven't done the enterprise budgeting, but the revenue from an established 50 acre blueberry farm will be much higher than that of a 500 acre corn farm. Initially I was a proponent of the use of enterprise budgeting as an indicator, but have become a bit ambivalent about it, since it will be a much more difficult and intensive practice for small diversified farms.
Jesse: I don't disagree with your contention that organic farmers are often following many sustainable practices. I just don't believe that it is necessarily true in every case. Julie Guthman addresses the issue of labor in particular in her excellent book Agrarian Dreams: The Paradox of Organic Farming in California. Again, I have been a longtime proponent of organic agriculture, but not all organic is the same. I was just trying to highlight this point.
Taylor
I also think that crop value needs to be considered.
My comments were primarily related to the suggestion in the article, as I interpreted it, that the "organic standard" itself makes agriculture inherently more sustainable. My main concerns (in terms of long term economic sustainability) were not related to the size of a particular farm, but to several issues that Don alludes to above: 1) the size of a field growing a single crop. We may have to think hard about how we reward crop diversity on farms of different sizes. A 15,000 acre farm might grow 30 different crops, but if they are all being grown on 500 acre fields then the ability of diversity to mitigate risk from pest outbreaks or weather events may not be ameliorated by their diversity to the extent that it is for a 150 acre farm growing growing 30 crops on 5 acre fields. 2) Desert agriculture and the increasing cost/decreasing availability of water resources needs to be considered. 3) Labor costs are a big question mark, since we are already experiencing a labor shortage in the Michigan vegetable industry and it looks like the house is ready to pass the E-Verify Bill without a provision for exempting agriculture (http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/09/mandatory-e-verify-bill-looks-headed-for-house-passage/).
Also, now that you mention farm size, I think it may be important to note that economic sustainability is not unrelated to the value of a crop/crops. I haven't done the enterprise budgeting, but the revenue from an established 50 acre blueberry farm will be much higher than that of a 500 acre corn farm. Initially I was a proponent of the use of enterprise budgeting as an indicator, but have become a bit ambivalent about it, since it will be a much more difficult and intensive practice for small diversified farms.
Jesse: I don't disagree with your contention that organic farmers are often following many sustainable practices. I just don't believe that it is necessarily true in every case. Julie Guthman addresses the issue of labor in particular in her excellent book Agrarian Dreams: The Paradox of Organic Farming in California. Again, I have been a longtime proponent of organic agriculture, but not all organic is the same. I was just trying to highlight this point.
Taylor
I also think that crop value needs to be considered.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to scs001economic_cr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/scs001economic_criteria?hl=en.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages