Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T05:16:50.927Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Policy approaches to energy and resource use in US agriculture

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2010

Ann Sorensen  and
Jimmy Daukas
Ann Sorensen*
Affiliation:
American Farmland Trust Center for Agriculture in the Environment, P.O. Box 987, DeKalb, IL, USA.
Jimmy Daukas
Affiliation:
American Farmland Trust Center for Agriculture in the Environment, P.O. Box 987, DeKalb, IL, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: asorensen@niu.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Improving energy and resource use in US agriculture begins with the soil. Healthy soils improve air and water quality, increase land productivity, help resist the effects of drought and floods, improve energy efficiency and enhance the ability to mitigate climate change. In 1993, the US Board on Agriculture concluded that national policy should seek to: conserve and enhance soil quality as a fundamental first step to improve the environment; increase the efficiency of nutrient, pesticide and irrigation use in farming systems; increase the resistance of farming systems to erosion and runoff; and make greater use of field and landscape buffer zones, all delivered through farm system management plans. Despite their detailed analysis and thoughtful approach, only a few of their recommendations were implemented. But now, calls from the scientific community to improve resource and energy use in agriculture are becoming more urgent in tone and could help drive policy reform. We review the reasons behind this rising sense of urgency, highlight some of the potential policy drivers along with policy ‘game changers’ and offer policy options. We argue to expand our view of agriculture as a source not only of food, fiber, biofuels and renewable energy but also of other critical ecosystem services, like cleaner water, carbon sequestration and wildlife habitat, and to adjust policies to realize this potential on all agricultural lands. We recommend undertaking a second National Agricultural Land Study as a basis to develop a clear national strategy to help US agriculture meet the challenges it will face in the coming decades. For the short term, we offer incremental policies to improve energy and resource use and, for the long term, we offer a vision of what that national strategy might include once the necessary analyses are completed and consensus is reached.

Keywords

agricultural policy optionssustainable use of energy and resources in US agriculturefarm policy reformmultifunctional agriculture
Type
Invited Paper
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 25 , Special Issue 2: “Sustainable Agriculture Systems in a Resource Limited Future” , June 2010 , pp. 109 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Redefining Sustainable: Challenges for Resource and Energy Use Policy in the US

Both in the US and abroad, agriculture increasingly competes with other uses for land, water and biotaReference Holdren1, 2. Population growth, rising incomes and global climate change intensify this competition. The global population is projected to increase to 9 billion people by 2050Reference Holdren1. Rising incomes may generate more demand for meat, increasing grain productionReference Tilman, Cassman, Matson, Naylor and Plasky3. Worldwide demand for feed grains could be more than double between now and 2050Reference Babcock4. And global climate change will likely increase the demand for both biofuels and carbon sequestration in intact forests, while simultaneously stressing farms and forests with increased heat, drought and wildfiresReference Holdren1–Reference Tilman, Cassman, Matson, Naylor and Plasky3, 5, 6. In addition, the global environment continues to experience toxic spillovers from energy supply, industry and agricultureReference Holdren1, Reference Rockstrom, Steffen, Noone, Persson, Chapin, Lambin, Lenton, Scheffer, Folke, Schellinhuber, Nykvist, de Wit, Hughes, ven derLeeuw, Rodhe, Sorlin, Synder, Costanza, Svedin, Falkenmark, Karlberg, Corell, Fabry, Hansen, Walker, Liverman, Richardson, Crutzen and Foley7. A new global analysis predicts that our planet is approaching the boundaries for global freshwater use, change in land use, ocean acidification and interference with the global phosphorus cycleReference Rockstrom, Steffen, Noone, Persson, Chapin, Lambin, Lenton, Scheffer, Folke, Schellinhuber, Nykvist, de Wit, Hughes, ven derLeeuw, Rodhe, Sorlin, Synder, Costanza, Svedin, Falkenmark, Karlberg, Corell, Fabry, Hansen, Walker, Liverman, Richardson, Crutzen and Foley7. Three of the Earth-system processes (climate change, rate of biodiversity loss and interference with the nitrogen cycle) may have already transgressed their boundaries as a result of human activitiesReference Rockstrom, Steffen, Noone, Persson, Chapin, Lambin, Lenton, Scheffer, Folke, Schellinhuber, Nykvist, de Wit, Hughes, ven derLeeuw, Rodhe, Sorlin, Synder, Costanza, Svedin, Falkenmark, Karlberg, Corell, Fabry, Hansen, Walker, Liverman, Richardson, Crutzen and Foley7.

The severity of climate change will be directly affected by the choices made curbing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over the next few decadesReference Johnson8, Reference Easterling, Hurd and Smith9. Even if nations begin to address global warming aggressively, gases already trapped in the atmosphere will influence future weather patterns and the availability of water and other vital ecosystem services for centuries to come6. US agriculture is experiencing declining water tables, increased costs of water withdrawal and the deterioration of water quality linked to climate changeReference Megdal, Hamann, Harter, Jawitz and Jess10. Increasingly negative impacts from extreme weather events are likely to occur before 2050Reference Nelson11. Projected increases in temperature, changes in rainfall amount and patterns, rising atmosphere concentrations of CO2 and tropospheric ozone, and increases in extreme weather events will affect agricultural productivity5, 6. The magnitude of effects will depend on agriculture's ability to adapt through future changes in technology and changes in environmental conditions such as water availability and soil quality5, 12. Indeed, without an unprecedented increase in conservation practices and significant changes in cropping systems, these changes in temperature and rainfall could cause huge economic losses and severe damage13.

Here in the US, our population is projected to increase by 50% to 450 million by 2050 and could go as high as 500 million through immigrationReference Havlin14. If we follow current land-use trends, by 2050 the amount of arable land per capita in the US will decrease from about 1.6 to 0.7 acres per person, while global arable land will decrease from 0.56 to 0.39 acres per personReference Havlin14. But while the need to enhance agriculture productivity increases, so do pressures to improve resource use efficiency, maximize energy conservation, reduce GHG emissions and improve resiliency to weather extremes15.

Policy Drivers

The challenges ahead for US agriculture are unprecedented yet we continue to rely on farm programs that were designed to deal with the issues of the 20th century and which may not provide the appropriate tools and incentives to address the challenges of this century15–Reference Smith21. In addition, other federal policies and programs on energy, the environment, climate change and nutrition increasingly affect agriculture and complicate the policy development process15. To succeed, new policies must respond to the ‘policy drivers’ listed below more effectively and convincingly than current policies. ‘Policy drivers’, as we define them in this paper, are issues or circumstances that either reopen policy debates or provide tools or scenarios that could make action to reform policies more likely. In some cases, as highlighted below, these policy drivers may evolve into policy ‘game changers’, which require policy-makers to act. While these ‘policy drivers’ will have a substantial effect on energy and resource use in US agriculture in the future, each also comes with opportunities.

A more variable climate

The US Global Change Research Program recently re-assessed global climate change impacts on US agriculture and concluded that productivity will increase in some regions and decrease in others6. Projected weather impacts from increased climate variability are numerous5, 6.

Opportunities

Managed carefully, climate adaptation strategies also benefit the environment since many involve improved resource management22.

Pressure to address climate change

US agriculture represents 8.6% of the nation's total GHG emissions, including 80% of its nitrous oxide emissions and 31% of its methane emissions6. Bills pending in Congress establish a cap-and-trade system for GHG emissions, while excluding agriculture from the caps (limits) on GHG emissions applied to other industriesReference Morgan17. Passage of a US climate change bill could be a ‘game changer’ for agricultural sustainability if it includes a significant offset market under cap and trade and an aggressive renewable electric standard that make it profitable for farmers and ranchers to sell carbon credits and produce low carbon energy. While agriculture is concerned about impacts on energy and input costsReference Morgan17, some analyses project modest costs for agriculture in the short term and net benefits over the long term23, 24, because of its ability to sequester carbon and/or reduce methane and nitrous oxide emissions and sell the resulting carbon offsets to regulated industries. Several issues remainReference Ribaudo25–Reference Kraft and Lant30 and groups hope to reach consensus around them31, 32. Because of the projected impacts of a variable climate on agriculture, inaction may be far more costlyReference Cox and Hug33–Reference Branosky36. Although federal legislation has stalled, 23 states are participating in regional partnerships that require reductions in GHG emission. In addition, three voluntary carbon-offset programs accept, or are considering, carbon offsets from agriculture37.

Opportunities

Agricultural practices that reduce GHG emissions offer multiple economic and environmental benefits38. For example, reducing field operations saves money, time and labor, while reducing fossil fuel use and soil organic carbon loss38. Improving nutrient management and substituting renewable organic nutrients for fossil fuel-based nutrients can reduce emissions, while maintaining yields and addressing water-quality issues38. Better management of nitrogen fertilizers could reduce nitrous oxide emissions and result in fewer nutrients reaching ground and surface waters38. Sequestering carbon in soils can increase resiliency to climate change, improve yields, deliver co-benefits and buy us time until alternatives to fossil fuels take effectReference Lal39. Recently, the European Union identified agricultural practices that mitigate GHG, provide environmental benefits and avoid societal, technical or economic trade-offsReference Flynn, Smith, Bindi, Trombi, Oudendag and Rousseva40.

Increasing demand for biofuels and renewable energy and rising fossil fuel costs

The Energy Independence Security Act sharply increased the requirements for future use of ethanol, biodiesel and ‘advanced’ biofuels (to 36 billion gallons by 2022) and the 2008 Farm Bill added additional ‘incentives’Reference Morgan17. But biofuels face some hurdles. EPA has proposed considering ‘indirect land use’ effects when calculating GHG emissions associated with advanced biofuelsReference Johnson8. The agency is concerned that more land may be brought into cultivation, releasing sequestered carbonReference Searchinger, Heimlich, Houghton, Dong, Elobeid, Fabiosa, Tokgoz, Hayes and Yu41. This claim has been challengedReference Liska, Yang, Bremer, Klopfenstein, Walters, Erickson and Cassman42, Reference Mathews and Tan43 but biofuels could also displace food crops and drive up the price of grain available for livestock productionReference Tilman, Cassman, Matson, Naylor and Plasky3. In the long term, using biomass or cellulosic ethanol may avoid some of these side effectsReference Kemp44, Reference Robertson, Dale, Doering, Hamburg, Melillo, Wander, Parton, Adler, Barney, Cruse, Duke, Fearnside, Follet, Gibbs, Goldemberg, Mladenoff, Ojima, Palmer, Sharply, Wallace, Weathers, Wiens and Wilhelm45, but the need to balance energy yields, carbon implications and the full impacts of biofuel production on downstream and downwind ecosystems remainsReference Robertson, Dale, Doering, Hamburg, Melillo, Wander, Parton, Adler, Barney, Cruse, Duke, Fearnside, Follet, Gibbs, Goldemberg, Mladenoff, Ojima, Palmer, Sharply, Wallace, Weathers, Wiens and Wilhelm45, 46. Near term, obtaining high grain yields with high efficiency will be critical to achieve a favorable energy balance and an adequate grain supplyReference Liska, Yang, Bremer, Klopfenstein, Walters, Erickson and Cassman42, Reference Cassman47. Average nitrogen fertilizer uptake efficiency for grain production is less than 40% of applied NReference Cassman, Dobermann and Walters48. At the same time, energy costs will continue to rise, with light sweet crude oil in the US predicted to rise from $61 per barrel in 2009 to $110 per barrel in 2015 and $130 per barrel in 203049.

Opportunities

Management practices that increase soil organic matter or alter organic matter composition to achieve better synchrony between soil net-N mineralization and crop demand provide efficiency benefits and improve the delivery of ecosystem services over the long termReference Cassman, Dobermann and Walters48, Reference Goldman, Thompson, Daily, Arha, Josling, Summer and Thompson50.

The market for farm-based renewable energy remains modest with on-farm energy costs, long-run supply challenges and regulatory and technological barriers impeding the adoption of many alternative energy systemsReference Schnepf51, Reference Liebrand and Ling52.

Opportunities

Anaerobic digesters (or methane digesters) could reduce both GHG emissions and nutrient loadings to waterways and generate additional income for struggling dairy producers, but require large capital investments, considerable technical knowledge plus management time and expertise to operate, and entail considerable business riskReference Liebrand and Ling52. Lower-tech alternatives exist but remain under-researched and under-utilized in the US, as Welsh and colleagues show in this issue.

The budget deficit

The current administration recently proposed phasing out direct payments to farmers with revenues above $500,000. Although this was strongly rejected by Congress, agriculture faces ‘budget reconciliation’ as Congress periodically reorders its fiscal prioritiesReference Morgan17. Privately, farmers and farm state lawmakers acknowledge the need to adjust the current farm programsReference Morgan17. Continuing budget deficits could emerge as a ‘game changer’ if there is a budget reduction agreement that forces significant spending cuts in farm subsidy and conservation programs.

Opportunities

Reorienting farm policy to conserve and manage ecosystem services from agriculture could produce real and compelling benefits for taxpayers and the environmentReference Cox, Arha, Josling, Summer and Thompson20, Reference Goldman, Thompson, Daily, Arha, Josling, Summer and Thompson50.

Continuing threat of regulation

Historically, the regulation on non-point source polluters such as agriculture has been voluntaryReference Ruhl53. A recently published Executive Order from the Obama administration and pending Total Maximum Daily Loads regulations are pressuring farmers in the Chesapeake Bay to improve nutrient handling54. The Chesapeake Bay could become a model for how the administration deals with water-quality issues in other large watersheds such as the Mississippi, Sacramento, Great Lakes and Puget Sound. In addition, the use of fertilizers is likely to come under heavier scrutiny because of the airborne impacts of nitrous oxide, a very potent GHGReference Robertson, Dale, Doering, Hamburg, Melillo, Wander, Parton, Adler, Barney, Cruse, Duke, Fearnside, Follet, Gibbs, Goldemberg, Mladenoff, Ojima, Palmer, Sharply, Wallace, Weathers, Wiens and Wilhelm45.

Opportunities

Changing tillage practices, improving soil quality, enhancing nutrient management and technology and adding more practices to sequester carbon will help prevent nutrients and soil sediments from leaving fields and improve nitrogen efficiency use.

Development of performance metrics

In 1993, The Board on Agriculture recommended that EPA and USDA develop quantifiable standards to help evaluate the management of farming systems16. Instead, demands from food processors, purchasers and consumers to know more about how their food is produced led to certification programs based on a priori determinations on technologies, practices and solutionsReference Thompson55, 56. These efforts are now shifting to performance metrics57. The ‘Farm to Market’ commodity crop project and the ‘Specialty Crop Sustainability Index’ are developing performance metrics and designing tools to help producers manage what they measure58. The Iowa Soybean Association uses field measurements to help farmers optimize their environmental performance, while maintaining or improving yields and profitability, and now includes over 400 producers in nine watersheds59. Work is also underway on a voluntary national sustainable agriculture standard that uses metrics to submit to the American National Standards Institute60 and industry giant Walmart is developing metrics specifically for agriculture for use by its suppliers61.

Opportunities

Linking energy and resource conservation practices to measurable outcomes provides producers with flexibility in meeting outcomes and brings us closer to quantifiable standards.

Shifting research priorities and producing better data

The USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service Long-Term Agricultural Research Program includes research on resiliency, ecosystem services and agricultural systems that maximize energy conservation, reduce GHGs and encourage mitigationReference Robertson, Allen, Boody, Boose, Creamer, Drinkwater, Gosz, Lynch, Havlin, Jackson, Pickett, Pitelka, Randall, Reed, Seastedt, Waide and Wall62. In addition, a multi-agency effort is underway at the federal level to quantify the environmental benefits of conservation practices63 and USDA's Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program provides increasingly robust and diverse data on integrated farming systems and conservation practices that are profitable, environmentally sound and linked to outcomes64.

Opportunities

A better understanding of how agricultural systems can balance competing needs, along with data linking practices to environmental benefits, should help us design more effective policies.

Escalating pressure from the international community and agricultural investors

Efforts by the international community to engage agriculture to improve its energy and resource use22, 65 may put more pressure on the US to begin reforming policies and provide useful blueprints for the US to follow. Both the United Nation's Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have analyzed the challenges and opportunities for mitigation of GHG emissions by agriculture and have recommended policies and programs (although a US-focused analysis might reach different conclusions)66, 67. At the same time, agricultural investors express concerns about climate changeReference Kahn and Zaks68, 69.

Opportunities

A new policy framework that encourages the mitigation of GHG emissions might align the US more closely with its trading partners and potential investors.

Emerging private markets for ecosystem services

Private markets have emerged for the environmental services offered by some farms. Worldwide, ecosystem service markets hover between proof-of-concept and early adoptionReference Searle and Cox70. Early projects show that agriculture may cost-effectively deliver ecosystem services that would otherwise require industry to install costly infrastructure upgrades to meet regulatory requirements. For example, in the Great Miami River watershed, the watershed-wide average per unit cost to reduce phosphorus for wastewater treatment plant upgrades was estimated at $23.37/pound compared to $1.08/pound for agriculture; and to reduce nitrogen, point source unit costs were $4.72/pound compared to $0.45/pound for agriculture71. There are 57 water-quality trading programs worldwide, 51 are in the US, 33 allow point–non-point source trades, and 26 are active, 21 are pending and 10 are inactive or are completed pilots with no plans for future tradesReference Selman, Greenhalgh, Branosky, Jones and Guiling72. Most address nutrient reductions and a few address selenium discharge, sedimentation and water flow. Opportunities for producers to sell nitrogen and phosphorus credits exist, respectively, in 142 and 224 of 710 nutrient-polluted watershedsReference Ribaudo and Nickerson73.

Opportunities

Private markets put a value on environmental services, treat these services as commodities, diversify revenue streams for producers and reinforce the concept of farms as managed ecosystemsReference Kraft74.

Policy Recommendations

Positioning farms as managed ecosystems has been posed as the 21st century policy challengeReference Arha, Josling, Sumner, Thompson, Arha, Josling, Summer and Thompson19, Reference Kraft74. Indeed, shifting the primary focus of US farm policy to conserve ecosystem services across farm and ranch lands not only creates a flexible policy framework that helps balance competing needs but the right mix of incentives and regulations could help over a billion acres of farm and ranch land deliver a vast and timely array of services that benefit the environment, society and individual farmersReference Arha, Josling, Sumner, Thompson, Arha, Josling, Summer and Thompson19, Reference Goldman, Thompson, Daily, Arha, Josling, Summer and Thompson50. These include provisioning services of food, fiber, wood, fuel and fresh water; regulating services like buffering the effects of natural flooding; cultural services like recreation; and supporting services like cycling organic matter and transforming solar energy into plant matter2, Reference Kraft74–Reference Swinton76. For the individual farmer, managing for ecosystem services could reduce the need for costly inputs while enhancing yieldsReference Goldman, Thompson, Daily, Arha, Josling, Summer and Thompson50. One suggested approach to developing a framework includes placing farmland in its ecological, geographic and economic contexts; examining and assessing the capacity of existing property rights, regulations and social norms; and identifying the policies neededReference Ruhl, Kraft and Lant77.

Informed discussion about ecosystem services by the lay public and policy-makers is just beginningReference Ruhl75, Reference Thompson78, but the policy ‘game changers’ we outline above may ultimately favor this approachReference Arha, Josling, Sumner, Thompson, Arha, Josling, Summer and Thompson19. Taking ecosystem services into account would help producers balance necessary increases in productivity with increases in resource efficiency use and improvements in resiliency. If we took this bold step, we might appeal to a broader cross-section of society (particularly those swayed more by economic arguments than by environmental concerns); show a greater return on policy investments with the delivery of more services; develop new economic markets to protect land and water; diversify revenue streams for producers; and improve environmental policy by establishing criteria that more fully account for the impacts of alternative policiesReference Arha, Josling, Sumner, Thompson, Arha, Josling, Summer and Thompson19, Reference Thompson78. With this in mind, we recommend the following options to address the challenges of this century:

  1. 1. Undertake a second National Agricultural Land Study: The US Secretary of Agriculture and President's Council on Environmental Quality commissioned the first National Agricultural Lands Study (NALS) in 1979, a two-year project involving 12 federal agencies, to document the extent and causes of the loss of agricultural lands79. Pressure from public-interest groups, state legislators and farm organizations, a pending bill in Congress calling for such a study and personal support from USDA Secretary Bergland provided the impetus behind NALSReference Gray80. We recommend broadening the focus in a second NALS to include all of the services that could potentially be offered by farm and ranch land, linking them to need and predicting future impacts. Such an analysis might combine elements of national land-use imaging81, the original NALS study79 and the Resources Conservation Act Appraisal process38.

  2. 2. Develop a clear national strategy: Farm Foundation laid out a 30-year challenge15 that recognizes US agriculture's strategic role in feeding and fueling a growing world, while dealing with financial markets and recession, food security, energy security, climate change, competition for natural resources and economic development. The report concludes: ‘The United States currently lacks a clear strategy for meeting the 30-year challenge. A clear statement of goals that recognizes the global nature of the problems facing U.S. agriculture, the high levels of uncertainty surrounding many of these problems, the shift to an era of multiplying demands, increasing competition for resources, and climate change could lead to more consistency in both public- and private-sector decisions. Policy consistency could lead to fewer counter-productive, unintended consequences and more effective use of scarce resources, both natural and financial’15. Armed with the results of NALS2, this same group should then lay out a comprehensive strategy that preserves and enhances ecosystem services from farm and ranch lands and helps agriculture thrive in an era of multiplying demands.

For the short term:

  1. 1. Prioritize conservation practices that most cost-effectively deliver co-benefits: Completing a NALS2 study and developing a national strategy will take time, so we should aspire to achieve WTO-compliant changes in the 2012 Farm BillReference Blandford and Josling82: reduce GHG emissions from large-scale livestock operations, promote reforestation, support co-generation of energy on farms, couple direct payments to environmental performanceReference Cox, Arha, Josling, Summer and Thompson20, 83 and tailor existing subsidy systems to encourage change as part of a comprehensive environmental program [for example, requiring conformance with environmental performance standards in order to receive subsidies or direct payments (cross-compliance)]Reference Cox, Arha, Josling, Summer and Thompson20, Reference Ruhl82–84. We recommend prioritizing conservation practices and techniques that mitigate GHG, improve the resiliency of agriculture and also provide environmental benefits, while avoiding societal, technical or economic trade-offs.

  2. 2. Target assistance and efforts to problem areas: Better targeting means directing technical assistance, educational efforts, financial resources and regulations at regions, watersheds and areas where soil degradation and water pollution are most severe16, Reference Cox, Arha, Josling, Summer and Thompson20, Reference Smith21, Reference Ruhl85, Reference Claassen86. We now know a lot more about where we need to focus resources. For example, agriculture practices in just nine states along the Mississippi River contribute 75% of the nitrogen and phosphorus pollution to the Dead ZoneReference Robertson, Schwartz, Saad and Alexander87. Although politically challengingReference Claassen86, shrinking budgets and pressure for better environmental outcomes might make targeting a bit more palatable.

  3. 3. Continue to remove the barriers to voluntary adoption of improved farming systems: On the whole, federal policies still continue to work against practices that generate ecosystem services, such as crop rotations, certain soil conservation practices, reductions in pesticide use and increased use of biological and cultural means of pest control16, Reference Claassen86. In addition, the real or perceived fear that conservation practices might affect crop yields argues for expanding efforts to overcome this barrier and implement approaches that mitigate risks and offer yield guarantees like that used by American Farmland TrustReference Townsend and Roobert88.

  4. 4. Provide regulatory relief to producers who implement valid farm system management plans: Producers who implement a valid farm system management plan should be immune from lawsuits or enforcement actions. In addition, farmers participating in ecosystem service markets should be eligible for regulation relief if they meet appropriate baseline standards. This requires a greater focus on whole-farm assessments and farm system management plans that encourage continuous improvements. These plans should maximize ecosystem services from farm operations, using emerging performance metrics tools that provide farmers flexibility in deciding what practices to employ.

  5. 5. Continue to help agriculture tap into emerging markets for ecosystem services: The 2008 Farm Bill created a new office of Ecosystem Services and Markets to help establish technical guidelines for emerging ecosystem services marketsReference Kraft74. Along with technical guidelines, emerging markets may also benefit from: enforcing regulations (for example, numeric water-quality standards or a cap on carbon emissions); encouraging intermediary institutions that can help farmers in these new markets (e.g., provide technical assistance; act as aggregators on both ends, for both buyers and sellers); reassuring financial lending institutions that practices and income streams will last for the life of the loan; and dealing with market scale issuesReference Thompson78. Some markets will be national or global in scope, while other markets will be quite local and unique with significant transaction costs and may need help from the federal governmentReference Ruhl89.

  6. 6. Build a technical services infrastructure suitable for environmental management: Producers need assistance to improve their environmental management, develop farm system management plans, use information-intensive technologies and reach ‘late adopters’ Reference Caswell, Fuglie, Ingram, Jans and Kascak90, Reference Makuch, Gagnon and Sherman91, but US agriculture is rapidly losing the capacity to ‘get conservation on the ground’Reference Cox, Arha, Josling, Summer and Thompson20, Reference Stubbs92. Capacity-building argues for a coordinated investment plan that couples the new Commodity Credit Corporation funding with strategic increases in discretionary funds for research, education and technical assistance and allocates those resources to federal, state, local government, non-governmental organizations and the private sector based on their ability to deliverReference Cox, Arha, Josling, Summer and Thompson20, 38.

  7. 7. Significantly increase public investment in agricultural research: Investments in US agricultural research have an average annual economic rate of return to the public of 53%93, but to meet future challenges, the public would benefit from greater investments in research that enhances agricultural productivity while improving resource use efficiency, maximizing energy conservation, reducing GHG emissions, mitigating GHGs and improving resiliency to weather extremes.

One vision for the longer term:

  1. 1. Establish a land stewardship standard: Use the findings of NALS2 and the goals set in the new national strategy to establish clear performance standards and encourage innovation. The resulting ‘land stewardship standard’Reference Arha, Josling, Sumner, Thompson, Arha, Josling, Summer and Thompson19 would apply to all producers regardless of changes in market prices, ownership of the land, production systems, the structure of the farm enterprise or the goals of the producer, providing the permanence in requirements that most producers seek16. Farm system management plans would help producers meet the land stewardship standards. The standards would most likely encompass the decades-old Board on Agriculture recommendations16. Although the costs of this approach have not been calculated, when USDA NRCS analyzed conservation alternatives in 2001, the total societal costs of the highest level of conservation applied nationwide were $6.4 billion/year, providing environmental benefits of $10.7 billion at a benefit/cost ratio of 1.738. In comparison, farm commodity and price support programs averaged nearly $15 billion annually from 1995 to 2004Reference Becker94. Direct government payments for income support reach about 25% of all farmsReference Dimitri, Effland and Conklin95.

  2. 2. Use a whole-farm stewardship agreement to deliver coordinated programs and services: Instead of pitching a confusing array of separate programs and services to farmers and ranchers, use one agreement to deliver them to the landowner or operator. A whole-farm stewardship agreement would: determine whether a farmer meets the land stewardship standard (or needs technical assistance to meet it); help achieve the conservation priorities in the local watershed; make a range of programs available to the farmer; and set performance criteriaReference Arha, Josling, Sumner, Thompson, Arha, Josling, Summer and Thompson19, 83.

  3. 3. Align federal farm support with the production of public goods such as environmental services and use regulatory approaches when warranted: Any federal farm support should complement the ecosystem services framework. Regulatory approaches may be warranted to address: (1) areas where soil and water-quality degradation is severe and (2) problem farms that are unacceptably slow in implementing improved farming systems to meet the land stewardship standard2, Reference Ruhl85.

References

1Holdren, J. 2008. Science and technology for sustainable well-being. Science 319:424–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Synthesis Report 2005. Available at Web site: http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/article.aspx?id=58 (verified 3 February 2010).Google Scholar
3Tilman, D., Cassman, K.G., Matson, P.A., Naylor, R., and Plasky, S. 2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418:671–677.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4Babcock, B. 2008. Charting growth in food demand. Iowa Agricultural Review Online 14 (3 ). Available at Web site: http://www.card.iastate.edu/iowa_ag_review/summer_08/article4.aspx (verified 3 February 2010).Google Scholar
5Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
6U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. Available at Web site: http://www.globalchange.gov/usimpacts (verified 3 February 2010).Google Scholar
7Rockstrom, R., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F.S. III, Lambin, E.F., Lenton, T.M., Scheffer, M., Folke, C., Schellinhuber, H.J., Nykvist, B., de Wit, C.A., Hughes, T., ven derLeeuw, S., Rodhe, H., Sorlin, S., Synder, P.K., Costanza, R., Svedin, U., Falkenmark, M., Karlberg, L., Corell, R.W., Fabry, V.J., Hansen, J., Walker, B., Liverman, D., Richardson, K., Crutzen, P., and Foley, J.A. 2009. A safe operating space for humanity. Nature 461:472–475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Johnson, R. 2009. Climate Change: The Role of the U.S. Agricultural Sector and Congressional Action. Congressional Research Service RL33893.Google Scholar
9Easterling, W.E. III, Hurd, B.H., and Smith, J.B. 2004. Coping with Global Climate Change: The Role of Adaptation in the United States. Pew Center for Global Climate Change, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
10Megdal, S.B., Hamann, R., Harter, T., Jawitz, J.W., and Jess, J.M. 2009. Water, People and the Future: Water Availability for Agriculture in the United States. Issue Paper No. 44. CAST, Ames, IA.Google Scholar
11Nelson, G.C. 2009. Agriculture and Climate Change: An Agenda for Negotiation in Copenhagen. Focus 16, Brief 1, May 2009. International Food Policy Institute.Google Scholar
12U.S. EPA. Available at Web site: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects/agriculture.html#ref (verified 3 February 2010).Google Scholar
13Soil and Water Conservation Society. 2003. Conservation Implications of Climate Change: Soil Erosion and Runoff from Cropland. A Report from the Soil and Water Conservation Society, January 2003.Google Scholar
14Havlin, J. 2008. U.S. Agriculture: Meeting Future Demand for Food, Fiber and Fuel. Available at Web site: http://www.agry.purdue.edu/CCA/2008/Proceedings/HavlinSW.pdf (verified 3 February 2010).Google Scholar
15Farm Foundation. 2008. The Thirty Year Challenge: Agriculture's Strategic Role in Feeding and Fueling a Growing World. Available at Web site: http://www.farmfoundation.org/default.aspx (verified 4 February 2010).Google Scholar
16National Academy of Sciences. 1993. Soil and Water Quality: An Agenda for Agriculture. National Research Council Board on Agriculture. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
17Morgan, D. 2010. The Farm Bill and Beyond. Economic Policy Paper Services 2010. The German Marshall Fund of the United States, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
18Arha, K. and Josling, T. 2007. Promoting the economic resilience and conserving the ecological integrity of American farmlands. In Arha, K., Josling, T., Summer, D.A., and Thompson, B.H. (eds). U.S. Agricultural Policy and the 2007 Farm Bill. Woods Institute for the Environment. Stanford University. p. 1–4. Available at Web site: http://woods.stanford.edu/ideas/farmbill/results.html (verified 3 February 2010).Google Scholar
19Arha, K., Josling, T., Sumner, D.A., and Thompson, B.H. 2007. Conserving ecosystem services across agrarian landscapes. In Arha, K., Josling, T., Summer, D.A., and Thompson, B.H. (eds). U.S. Agricultural Policy and the 2007 Farm Bill. Woods Institute for the Environment. Stanford University. p. 207–229.Google Scholar
20Cox, C. 2007. U.S. agricultural conservation policy and programs: history, trends and implications. In Arha, K., Josling, T., Summer, D.A., and Thompson, B.H. (eds). U.S. Agricultural Policy and the 2007 Farm Bill. Woods Institute for the Environment. Stanford University. p. 113–146. Available at Web site: http://woods.stanford.edu/ideas/farmbill/results.htmlGoogle Scholar
21Smith, K.R. 2001. Retooling Farm Policy. Issues in Science and Technology Online Summer 2001 Available at Web site: http://www.issues.org/17.4/smith.htm (verified 3 February 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22FAO. 2007. Adaptation to Climate Change in Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries: Perspective, Framework and Priorities. Interdepartmental Working Group on Climate Change. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.Google Scholar
23USDA Economic Research Service. 2009. A Preliminary Analysis of the Effects of HR 2454 on U.S. Agriculture. Office of the Chief Economist, USDA–ERS.Google Scholar
2425×25 Coalition. 2009. Summary of Recent Cost Impact Data. American Clean Energy Security Act of 2009 (H,R, 2454). Available at Web site: http://www.25×25.org/ (verified 3 February 2010).Google Scholar
25Ribaudo, M. 2008. Offsets vs. Allowances. Prepared for: Agriculture's Role in Mitigating Climate Change Workshop, 13–14 August 2008, Washington, DC. American Farmland Trust, USDA Economic Research Service and Farm Foundation.Google Scholar
26Lewandrowski, J. 2008. Additionality. Prepared for Agriculture's Role in Mitigating Climate Change Workshop, 13–14 August 2008, Washington, DC. American Farmland Trust, USDA Economic Research Service and Farm Foundation.Google Scholar
27Lewandrowski, J. 2008. Leakage. Prepared for Agriculture's Role in Mitigating Climate Change Workshop. 13–14 August 2008, Washington, DC. American Farmland Trust, USDA Economic Research Service and Farm Foundation.Google Scholar
28Murray, B.C. 2008. Addressing permanence and reversal risk in agriculture, Land use change and forest carbon projects. Prepared for Agriculture's Role in Mitigating Climate Change Workshop, 13–14 August 2008. American Farmland Trust, USDA Economic Research Service and Farm Foundation, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
29Olander, L. 2008. Treatment of early actors in a Federal Cap and Trade. Prepared for Agriculture's Role in Mitigating Climate Change Workshop, 13–14 August 2008, Washington, DC. American Farmland Trust, USDA Economic Research Service and Farm Foundation.Google Scholar
30Kraft, S.E. and Lant, C. 2008. Monitoring, compliance and enforcement. Prepared for Agriculture's Role in Mitigating Climate Change Workshop, 13–14 August 2008, Washington, DC. American Farmland Trust, USDA Economic Research Service and Farm Foundation.Google Scholar
31American Farmland Trust, Farm Foundation and USDA Economic Research Service. 2008. Agriculture's Role in Mitigating Climate Change. In Proceedings of the Large Group Workshop Summary Discussion. American Farmland Trust, Farm Foundation and USDA Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. Available along with briefing papers at Web site: http://www.farmland.org/programs/environment/workshops/August-2008-public.asp (verified 3 February 2010).Google Scholar
3225×25 Coalition. 2009. Work must continue on Senate Climate Bill. Available at Web site: http://blog.25×25.org/?p=1077 (verified 3 February 2010).Google Scholar
33Cox, C. and Hug, A. 2009. Crying wolf: Climate change far greater threat to farmers than climate legislation: Cost of House ACES Bill is pocket change per acre for most crops. Environmental Working Group. October 2009. Available at Web site: http://www.ewg.org/agmag (verified 3 February 2010).Google Scholar
34Babcock, B. 2009. Costs and benefits to agriculture from climate change policies. Iowa Agricultural Review Online 15(3).Google Scholar
35U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Potential in U.S. Forestry and Agriculture. Office of Atmospheric Programs (6207 J), Washington, DC. EPA 430-R-05-006 November 2005.Google Scholar
36Branosky, E. 2006. Agriculture and climate change: The policy context. WRI Policy Note Climate: Agriculture No. 1. World Resources Institute. October 2006.Google Scholar
37Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Available at Web site: http://www.pewclimate.org/ (verified 3 February 2010).Google Scholar
38USDA NRCS. 2001. A Resources Conservation Act Report. Interim Appraisal and Analysis of Conservation Alternatives. September 2001.Google Scholar
39Lal, R. 2004. Soil carbon sequestration impacts on global climate change and food security. Science 304:1623–1627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40Flynn, H., Smith, P., Bindi, M., Trombi, G., Oudendag, D., and Rousseva, S. 2007. Policy incentives for climate change mitigation agricultural techniques. Deliverable D3: Practice description and analysis report. PICCMAT.Google Scholar
41Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R.A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., Tokgoz, S., Hayes, D., and Yu, T.-H. 2008. Use of US croplands for biofuels increases greenhouse gases through emissions from land-use change. Science 319:1238–1240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
42Liska, A.J., Yang, H.S., Bremer, V.R., Klopfenstein, T.J., Walters, D.T., Erickson, G.E., and Cassman, K.G. 2009. Improvements in life cycle energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions of corn ethanol. Journal of Industrial Ecology 13:58–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43Mathews, J.A. and Tan, H. 2009. Biofuels and Indirect Land Use Change Effects: The Debate Continues. Biofuels, Bioproducts, Bioreferences147. Published online in Wiley InterScience: http://www.interscience.wiley.com. (verified 3 February 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44Kemp, L. 2007. Testimony. Senior Policy Analyst, The Minnesota Project Hearing on Renewable Energy.Google Scholar
45Robertson, G.P., Dale, V.H., Doering, I.C., Hamburg, S.P., Melillo, J.M., Wander, M.M., Parton, W.J., Adler, P.R., Barney, J.N., Cruse, R.M., Duke, C.S., Fearnside, P.M., Follet, R.F., Gibbs, H.K., Goldemberg, J., Mladenoff, D.J., Ojima, D., Palmer, M.W., Sharply, A., Wallace, L., Weathers, K.C., Wiens, J.A. and Wilhelm, W.W. 2008. Sustainable biofuels redux. Science 322:49–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
46McKnight Foundation. 2006. Symposium on Sustainable Feedstocks for Biofuels Production, 2–3 March 2006, Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
47Cassman, K.G. 2006. Predicting the efficiency and environmental impact of corn-ethanol production systems. Ethanol Producer. January 2006.Google Scholar
48Cassman, K.G., Dobermann, A., and Walters, D.T. 2002. Agroecosystems, nitrogen-use efficiency and nitrogen management. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 31(2):132–140.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
49U.S. Department of Energy. Available at Web site: http://www.eia.doe.gov/ (verified 3 February 2010).Google Scholar
50Goldman, R.L., Thompson, B.H., and Daily, G.D. 2007. Managing for ecosystem services on U.S. agricultural lands. In Arha, K., Josling, T., Summer, D.A., and Thompson, B.H. (eds). U.S. Agricultural Policy and the 2007 Farm Bill. Woods Institute for the Environment. Stanford University. p. 97–112.Google Scholar
51Schnepf, R. 2007. Agriculture-based renewable energy production. Congressional Research Service Report RL32712.Google Scholar
52Liebrand, C. and Ling, K.C. 2009. Switching on cow power: Co-ops can play role in turning dairy waste into energy and byproducts. Rural Cooperatives, January/February 2009: p. 18–20.Google Scholar
53Ruhl, J.B. 2001. Keeping the Agriculture in Sustainable Agriculture: The Challenge of Environmental Policy Reform for Agriculture in the American Midwest. World Wildlife Fund, American Farmland Trust and Winrock International Henry A. Wallace Center for Agricultural and Environmental Policy.Google Scholar
54Chesapeake Bay Program. Available at Web site: http://www.chesapeakebay.net/ (verified 3 February 2010).Google Scholar
55Thompson, B.H. 2006. Green Certification Programs. Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, 15 September 2006.Google Scholar
56IPM Institute of North America, Inc. 2008 IPM Institute News: IPM in the Marketplace. Volume 9(1). Available at Web site: http://ipminstitute.org/newsletter/newsletter_v9i1.htm (verified 3 February 2010).Google Scholar
57Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2001. Environmental Indicators for Agriculture Volume 3 Complete for Methods and Results. OECD, Paris, France.Google Scholar
58Field to market. Available at Web site: http://www.fieldtomarket.org and Stewardship index for specialty crops website: www.stewardshipindex.org (verified 3 February 2010).Google Scholar
59Iowa Soybean Association. Available at Web site: http://www.iasoybeans.com/environment/ (verified 3 February 2010).Google Scholar
60Sustainable Agriculture Standards. Available at Web site: http://redesign.leonardoacademy.org/programs/standards/agstandard.html) (verified 3 February 2010).Google Scholar
61Walmart Sustainability efforts are profiled. Available at Web site: http://walmartstores.com/sustainability/ (verified 3 February 2010).Google Scholar
62Robertson, G.P., Allen, V.G., Boody, G., Boose, E.R., Creamer, N.G., Drinkwater, L.E., Gosz, J.R., Lynch, L., Havlin, J.L., Jackson, L.E., Pickett, S.T.A., Pitelka, L., Randall, A., Reed, A.S., Seastedt, T.R., Waide, R.B., and Wall, D.H. 2008. Long-term agricultural research: a research, education and extension imperative. BioScience 58(7):1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
63CEAP (Conservation Assessment Effects Program). Available at Web site: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/TECHNICAL/NRI/ceap/ (verified 3 February 2010).Google Scholar
64USDA SARE. Available at Web site: http://www.sare.org (verified 3 February 2010).Google Scholar
65European Commission. Information on the European Union's approach to climate change mitigation and adaption can be found at Web site: http://ec.europa.eu/ (verified 3 February 2010).Google Scholar
66United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 2008. Challenges and opportunities for mitigation in the agricultural sector. Technical Paper. FCCC/TP/2008/8. GE.08-64351.Google Scholar
67IPCC Working Group II. 2009. Summary for policymakers: scientific-technical analyses of impacts, adaptations and mitigation of climate change – IPCC Working Group II. Available from Web site: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/contents.html (verified 4 February 2010).Google Scholar
68Kahn, B. and Zaks, D.P.M. 2009. Investing in agriculture: Far-reaching challenge, significant opportunity. An asset management perspective. DB Climate Change Advisors. Deutsche Bank Group.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
69ICC Task Force on Convention on Biological Diversity. 2008. Sustainable Agriculture Contributions by the Private Sector. Integrated biodiversity conservation into agricultural production. Replicating and scaling up winning solutions. Discussion Paper. International Chamber of Commerce. Document 213-15/2.Google Scholar
70Searle, B. and Cox, S. 2009. The State of Ecosystem Services. The Bridgespan Group. Boston, MA, New York, NY and San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
71Kieser & Associates. 2004. Preliminary economic analysis of water quality trading opportunities in the Great Miami River Watershed, Ohio. Prepared for the Miami Conservancy District, 23 July 2004.Google Scholar
72Selman, M., Greenhalgh, S., Branosky, E., Jones, C., and Guiling, J. 2009. Water quality trading programs: An international overview. World Resources Institute Brief No. 1.Google Scholar
73Ribaudo, M.O. and Nickerson, C.J. 2009. Agriculture and water quality trading: exploring the possibilities. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 64:1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
74Kraft, S.E. 2008. Ecosystem services: A 21st century challenge. Choices 2nd Quarter 23(2):26–27.Google Scholar
75Ruhl, J.B. 2008. Agriculture and ecosystem services: Strategies for state and local governments. New York University Environmental Law Journal 17:424–454.Google Scholar
76Swinton, S. 2008. Reimaging farms as managed ecosystems. Choices 2nd Quarter 23(2):28–31.Google Scholar
77Ruhl, J.D., Kraft, S.E., and Lant, C.L. 2007. The Law and Policy of Ecosystem Services. Island Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
78Thompson, B.H. 2008. Ecosystem services and natural capital: reconceiving environmental management. New York University Environmental Law Journal 17:460–489.Google Scholar
79Farmland Information Center. Summary, National Agricultural Land Study. Available at Web site: http://www.farmlandinfo.org (verified 3 February 2010).Google Scholar
80Gray, R. 1981. The National Agricultural Lands study: an interview with Robert Gray. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation Society 36(2):62–68.Google Scholar
81Office of Science and Technology Policy. 2007. National Science and Technology Council Interagency Working Group, A Plan for a U.S. National Land Imaging Program. August 2007.Google Scholar
82Blandford, D. and Josling, T. 2009. Greenhouse Gas Reduction Policies and Agriculture: Implications for Production Incentives and International Trade Disciplines. ICTSD-IPC Platform on Climate Change, Agriculture and Trade. Issue Brief No. I. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland and International Food and Agricultural Trade Policy Council, Washington, DC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
83American Farmland Trust. 2006. Agenda 2007: A new framework and direction of U.S. Farm Policy. Available at Web site: http://www.farmland.org/programs/campaign/Agenda2007.asp (verified 3 February 2010).Google Scholar
84FAO. 2001. The Economics of Conservation Agriculture. Available at Web site: http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/Y2781E/y2781e00.htm#toc (verified 3 February 2010).Google Scholar
85Ruhl, J.B. 2002. Three questions for agriculture about the environment. Plenary speech delivered on 14 February 2002 at the 8th Annual PIEC, University of Florida.Google Scholar
86Claassen, R. 2007. Emphasis shifts in U.S. conservation policy. Amber Waves. Perspectives on Food and Farm Policy, Volume 5, May 2007. USDA, Economic Research Service, Washington, DC. Available at Web site: http://www.ers.usda.gov/AmberWaves/May07SpecialIssue/Features/Emphasis.htm (verified 3 February 2010).Google Scholar
87Robertson, D.M., Schwartz, G.E., Saad, D.A., and Alexander, R.B. 2009. Incorporating uncertainty into the ranking of SPARROW model nutrient yields from the Mississippi/Atchafalaya River Basin watersheds. Available at Web site: http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/sparrow/nutrient_yields/ (verified February 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
88Townsend, A.R. and Roobert, R.W. 2010. Fixing the global nitrogen problem. Scientific American 2010 (February):64–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
89Ruhl, J.B. 2008. Agriculture and Ecosystem Services: Strategies for State and Local Governments. NYU Environmental Law Journal 17(1). Available at Web site http://ssm.com/abstract=1367292 (verified 10 March 2010).Google Scholar
90Caswell, M., Fuglie, K., Ingram, C., Jans, S., and Kascak, C. 2001. Adoption of agricultural production practices: Lessons learned from the U.S. Department of Agriculture area studies project. USDA ERS Report No. 792.Google Scholar
91Makuch, J., Gagnon, S., and Sherman, T. 2004. Implementing agricultural conservation practices: Barriers and incentives. A conservation effects assessment bibliography. Special Reference Briefs Series 2004-02.Google Scholar
92Stubbs, M. 2007. Technical assistance for agriculture conservation. Congressional Research Service RL34069.Google Scholar
93Farm Foundation. 2009. Agriculture research and productivity for the future. Farm Foundation Issue Paper. Available at Website: http://www.farmfoundation.org (verified 3 February 2010).Google Scholar
94Becker, G.S. 2005. Farm Commodity Programs: A short primer. Congressional Research Service RS20848, 7 February 2005.Google Scholar
95Dimitri, C., Effland, A., and Conklin, N. 2005. The 20th century transformation of US Agriculture and Farm Policy. USDA ERS Economic Information Bulletin No. 3.Google Scholar