Agriculture en Resolving the Food Crisis: Assessing Global Policy Reforms Since 2007 <div data-history-node-id="41680" class="node node--type-document node--view-mode-rss no-field-teaser-image title-not-empty ds-1col clearfix"> <div class="field field--name-field-author-text field--type-text-long field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Author (free form)</div> <div class="field--item"><p>Timothy A. Wise</p> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><h3>Executive summary</h3> <p>The recent spikes in global food-prices in 2007-08 served as a wake-up call to the global community on the inadequacies of our global food system. Commodity prices doubled, the estimated number of hungry people topped one billion and food riots spread through the developing world. A second price spike in 2010-11, which is expected to drive the global food import bill for 2011 to an astonishing $1.3 trillion, only deepened the sense that the policies and principles guiding agricultural development and food security were deeply flawed. </p> <p>There is now widespread agreement that international agricultural prices will remain significantly higher than precrisis levels for at least the next decade, with many warning that demand will outstrip supply by 2050 unless concerted action is taken to address the underlying problems with our food system.</p> <p>The crisis certainly awakened the global community. Since 2007, governments and international agencies have made food security a priority issue, and with a decidedly different tone. They stress the importance of agricultural development and food production in developing countries, the key role of small-scale farmers and women, the challenge of limited resources in a climate-constrained world, the important role of the state in “country-led” agricultural development programs, the critical role of public investment. For many, these priorities represent a sea change from policies that sought to free markets from government policies seen as hampering efficient resource allocation. Now that those policies and markets have failed to deliver food security, the debates over how countries and international institutions should manage our food system are more open than they have been in decades.</p> <p>The purpose of this report is to look beyond the proclamations and communiqués to assess what has really changed since the crisis erupted. While not exhaustive, the report looks at: Overseas Development Assistance, both in terms of how much and what is funded; Multilateral Development Banks’ policies and programs; selected U.N. agencies and initiatives, notably the Committee on Food Security (CFS); the G-20 group of economically powerful governments; and the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the right to food, who has injected a resonant “right to food” approach to the issue.</p> <p> </p> <ul><li>low levels of investment in developing-country agriculture in general and small-scale agriculture in particular; </li> <li>reduced support for publicly funded research and development and increased reliance on private research;</li> <li>a reliance on international trade to meet domestic food needs in poor countries that can ill-afford the import dependence and declining local production; </li> <li> <div>a bias toward cash crops for export over food production for domestic markets; </div> </li> <li> <div>increasing land use for non-food agricultural crops such as biofuels for industrial uses;</div> </li> <li> <div>support for high-input agricultural methods over more environmentally sustainable low-input systems; </div> </li> <li> <div>inadequate attention to the linkages between climate change and food security; and </div> </li> <li> <div>deregulation of commodity markets and increasing financial speculation in agricultural commodities,  including staple food crops as well as land.</div> </li> </ul><h4>Findings</h4> <div>Our review suggests that on the positive side, the food crisis was an important catalyst for change. As high prices persisted and public protest mounted, many governments were confronted with “moments of truth,” the cumulative result of which was to question some of the assumptions that had driven food and agriculture policy over the past few decades. This prompted renwed attention to agricultural development, reversing the long-standing neglect of agriculture as a vital economic sector. It also brought some important new funding, though at levels still far short of what is needed. </div> <div> </div> <div>The stated priorities for much of that funding suggest distinct improvement over the policies of the past few decades. The needs and political voices of small-scale farmers and women; environmental issues, including climate change; and, the weaknesses of international markets now receive more attention. The additional funding for these important areas is also driven by greater openness to country-led programs with strong state involvement, a marked change from past priorities. </div> <div> </div> <div>Our review suggests areas of great concern, though. We see neither the necessary urgency nor the willingness to change policies that contributed to the recent crisis. New international funding is welcome, but only $6.1 billion of the G-8’s pledged $22 billion, three-year commitment represents new money, and those pledges have been slow to materialize and are now threatened with cutbacks as developed countries adopt austerity measures. The overwhelming priority is to increase production. There are reasons to focus on this, specifically within low-income net-food importing countries. The setting of production targets at the global level, however, encourages an expansion in industrial agriculture and the consolidation of land holdings, including land grabs, and ignores environmental constraints and equity issues. </div> <div> </div> <div>Beyond funding, we find that the policies that contributed to the recent food-price crisis have gone largely unchanged, leaving global food security as fragile as ever. The world needs policies that discourage biofuels expansion, regulate financial speculation, limit irresponsible land investments, encourage the use of buffer stocks, move away from fossil fuel dependence and toward agro-ecological practices, and reform global agricultural trade rules to support rather than undermine food security objectives. </div> <div> </div> <div>Unfortunately, we find that the international institutions reviewed have shown too little resolve to address these issues. Although at the G-20 the world’s most economically powerful nations have asserted leadership on food security, their actions have been tepid if not counterproductive. This has had a chilling effect on reform efforts elsewhere in the international system, most notably at the United Nations. This raises important governance issues. The U.N.’s CFS is formally recognized by most institutions as the appropriate body to </div> <div>coordinate the global response to the food crisis, because of both its mandate and its inclusive, multi- takeholder structure. Yet in practice the G-20 has systematically constrained the reform agenda. Similarly, the WTO’s recent efforts to give the Doha Agenda more relevance by including food security issues in the form of restrictions on exporting countries’ use of export tariffs have failed, because many of the exporters (most of the G-20 members) refuse to surrender that policy space. Not surprisingly, importing countries’ wish for the same policy space with regard to their imports are now more determined than ever to insist on their rights.</div> <div> </div> <div>The recent food-price crisis exposed the fragility of the global food system. A paradigm shift is underway, caused by the deepening integration of agricultural, energy and financial markets in a resource-constrained world made more vulnerable by climate change. Powerful multinational firms dominate these markets. Many benefit from current policies and practices and their interests are a dominant influence in national and global policies—slowing, diverting, or halting needed action. This leaves international institutions promoting market-friendly reforms but resistant to imposing the concomitant regulations required to ensure well-functioning food and agricultural markets.</div> <div> </div> <div> <div>Three areas in particular demand decisive action:</div> <ul><li>Biofuels expansion – There is a clear international consensus that current policies to encourage biofuel expansion, particularly in the United States and Europe, are a major contributor to rising demand, tight supplies and rising prices. Yet international institutions, from the G-20 to the U.N. High-Level Task Force to the CFS, have diluted their demands for actions to address this problem.</li> <li>Price volatility – High spikes in prices remain a major problem for poor people worldwide, and for foodimporting developing countries in particular. The policy goal, for effective market functioning and for food security, should be relatively stable prices that are remunerative to farmers and affordable to consumers. We find few concrete actions toward this goal. There is strong evidence that financial speculation contributed to recent food-price volatility, though there remains considerable debate on the subject. As an FAO report on the topic noted, there is no demonstrated benefit to the public of allowing such speculation, and the potential costs are huge. Precautionary regulations are warranted but few have been taken. Similarly, the lack of publicly held food reserves contributes to the shortages that make speculation possible while leaving vulnerable countries at risk. Reserves should be explored more actively than simply as emergency regional humanitarian policy instruments. </li> <li>Land grabs – The scale and pace of land grabs is truly alarming, driven by financial speculation and land-banking by sovereign wealth funds in resource-constrained nations. The consensus is that such investments are not good for either food security or development. As laudable as recent efforts are to promote “responsible agricultural investment,” these initiatives risk being “too little too late” for a fast-moving phenomenon. Meanwhile, international institutions, such as the World Bank, must do more to protect smallscale producers’ access to land. </li> </ul><div> </div> <div>Fortunately, many developing countries are not waiting for international action or permission to more aggressively address the problems that can be dealt with at a national or regional level. Many of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Program (CAADP) projects in Africa, for example, emphasize the kinds of changes that are needed. CAADP has four pillars: land and water management, market access, food supply and hunger, and agricultural research. Bangladesh and other countries used food reserves to reduce the impact of the food-price spikes in far more ambitious efforts than the G-20 is proposing to support in West Africa. </div> <div> </div> <div>Developing-country governments will be central to bringing about such changes. They need the policy space to pursue their own solutions and they need the support of the international community to demand deeper reform in developed-country policies. The evidence discussed in this report suggests the paradigm shift has started but is incomplete. Many developing-country governments have chosen to step away from the prevailing orthodoxy of the last several decades and are again exploring a larger role for the public sector in governing agriculture and food. Donors, too, have shown some willingness to re-order priorities and to give greater space to agriculture, and to changing priorities within agricultural spending to acknowledge the need for more inclusive and sustainable outcomes. But they still resist more fundamental reform and continue to promote private investment and liberalized markets, relying on humanitarian aid and social safety nets to try to help those who are displaced by the policies.</div> <div> </div> <div>Perhaps not surprisingly, developed-country governments have yet to make the needed changes to their domestic policies. Comfortable with re-ordering development priorities, governments of rich countries have proved unwilling to look at their domestic agricultural economies to see what changes are needed there. If the most powerful countries are not willing to make the changes at home that would help international markets perform better, they should at a minimum stop undermining international efforts, at the U.N. and within </div> <div>and among developing countries, to address the fundamental causes of the food crisis.</div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-upload field--type-file field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Upload</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field--item"><span class="file file--mime-application-pdf file--application-pdf icon-before"><span class="file-icon"><span class="icon glyphicon glyphicon-file text-primary" aria-hidden="true"></span></span><span class="file-link"><a href="" type="application/pdf; length=885806" title="Open file in new window" target="_blank" data-toggle="tooltip" data-placement="bottom">2012_01_17_ResolvingFoodCrisis_SM_TW.pdf</a></span><span class="file-size">865.04 KB</span></span></div> </div> </div> </div> Wed, 18 Jan 2012 15:48:00 +0000 Andrew Ranallo 41680 at Bold farm plans in Mexico offer a ray of hope in 2019 <span>Bold farm plans in Mexico offer a ray of hope in 2019</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/2863" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Chris Palmquist</span></span> <span>Tue, 01/15/2019 - 08:57</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><span><span><span>As many in the United States agriculture community breathed a sigh of relief that the recently passed Farm Bill isn’t as bad as it could be, our neighbors to the south are moving forward quickly and decisively with bold new plans to transform their food and farm system.</div> Tue, 15 Jan 2019 14:57:51 +0000 Chris Palmquist 43879 at Uprooted Episode 51: Suing the USDA over CAFO Loans <span>Uprooted Episode 51: Suing the USDA over CAFO Loans</span> <div class="field field--name-field-media field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field--items"> <div class="field--item"><article class="media media-audio view-mode-feature"> </article> </div> </div> <span><span lang="" about="/about/staff/account/josh-wise" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Josh Wise</span></span> <span>Fri, 01/11/2019 - 11:17</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Josh talks with Ben Lilliston about a lawsuit that IATP has signed on to stop a policy that exempts CAFOs who receive federal loans from undergoing environmental review. You can read Ben's article on the topic here: </p> <p><a href=""></a></p> <p> </p> <p><iframe height="80" src="" width="640"></iframe></p> </div> Fri, 11 Jan 2019 17:17:25 +0000 Josh Wise 43877 at #AgTechTakeback - Tech revolutions, retro innovations and humus farming <span>#AgTechTakeback - Tech revolutions, retro innovations and humus farming</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/2863" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Chris Palmquist</span></span> <span>Thu, 01/03/2019 - 09:59</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><em>Stuart Meikle takes us back to the future, to the poorly named green revolution aka the origins of industrial farming, to the humus farming of just before that, and up to today with the huge challenges farming faces. Agtechtakeback: Tech Revolutions, Retro-Innovations and Humus Farming.</em></p></div> Thu, 03 Jan 2019 15:59:09 +0000 Chris Palmquist 43860 at USDA's GMO disclosure rule designed to cover up, not inform <div data-history-node-id="43855" class="node node--type-document node--view-mode-rss field-primary-category-agriculture has-field-primary-category has-field-teaser-image title-not-empty ds-1col clearfix"> <h3 > USDA&#039;s final rule is utterly inadequate, will sow confusion and distrust, hide information and turn grocery shopping into a lengthy and exasperating experience</h3> <div class="field field--name-field-author field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Author</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/about/staff/iatp" hreflang="en">IATP</a></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>MINNEAPOLIS—Today, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service released its final rule establishing the <a href=";H=btYXC68syxmDVppbhVzFoYHdeMNV9070xvOlf%2FNdDQ0wXj6aidRhmykk8xxBg2CiXWHbTyykKPB9ufWavqGz5elhRpQg1jbxs9GIufQVPXko5%2Fks5%2BSpV51aJqzr7ypZ&amp;G=0&amp;;I=20181220195713.0000019bccf5%40mail6-114-ussnn1&amp;X=MHwxMDQ2NzU4OjVjMWJmNDE3ZWY0NDg1MGExZjcwMzZiYTsxfDEwNDY3NTk6dHJ1ZTs%3D&amp;S=DdYI-FXT7fkPhZ1cm6eCrrITXE3nWVXyOohPmVWW2Ak">National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard.</a> Unfortunately, the final rule fails to fix the most <a href=";H=btYXC68syxmDVppbhVzFoYHdeMNV9070xvOlf%2FNdDQ0wXj6aidRhmykk8xxBg2CiXWHbTyykKPB9ufWavqGz5elhRpQg1jbxs9GIufQVPXko5%2Fks5%2BSpV51aJqzr7ypZ&amp;G=0&amp;;I=20181220195713.0000019bccf5%40mail6-114-ussnn1&amp;X=MHwxMDQ2NzU4OjVjMWJmNDE3ZWY0NDg1MGExZjcwMzZiYTsxfDEwNDY3NTk6dHJ1ZTs%3D&amp;S=HhWBxw0A3Vg2p313u0gnqWIrnbHRyNw6zPVJ2HrKoXU">egregious provisions of the draft rule</a> and is practically useless in conveying accurate information about food ingredients to consumers while they are shopping. The rule covers relatively few foods, exempting many processed foods where GMO ingredients are most common. Further, rather than require on-label disclosure of genetically engineered ingredients and foods, it allows manufacturers to hide behind vague statements on packages to call or text “for more information.”</p> <p>“It is obvious that this rule is intended to hide, not disclose, information about genetically modified foods,” said IATP <a href=";H=btYXC68syxmDVppbhVzFoYHdeMNV9070xvOlf%2FNdDQ0wXj6aidRhmykk8xxBg2CiXWHbTyykKPB9ufWavqGz5elhRpQg1jbxs9GIufQVPXko5%2Fks5%2BSpV51aJqzr7ypZ&amp;G=0&amp;;I=20181220195713.0000019bccf5%40mail6-114-ussnn1&amp;X=MHwxMDQ2NzU4OjVjMWJmNDE3ZWY0NDg1MGExZjcwMzZiYTsxfDEwNDY3NTk6dHJ1ZTs%3D&amp;S=EzBz6TKanr_X83WnT26dhQ_go894LlRa1qmHnUX4_5w">Senior Attorney Sharon Treat</a>. “Many manufacturers will be able to evade even the minimal requirements of the rule, and it will sow confusion and burden consumers with the responsibility of researching food ingredients themselves. Instead of clear on-package labeling, consumers will have to call or text manufacturers to find out what’s in their food—something they can do already. The rule adds nothing good to existing voluntary certification programs, and continues to preempt effective GMO labeling programs adopted by states including Vermont.”</p> <p>Despite acknowledging that the use of Internet and QR code disclosures are inadequate—the statement in support of the rule states the USDA “Secretary has determined that consumers would not have sufficient access to the bioengineering disclosure through electronic or digital means under ordinary shopping conditions”—the rule fails to address this shortcoming. Instead of requiring on-label disclosure, consumers will be directed to call or text for information, without any mention that such calls and texts are intended to receive information about genetically modified or “bioengineered” content. </p> <p>The rule has such a narrow definition of “bioengineered”—the term USDA uses instead of genetically engineered or modified, which are more common—that many foods (including many packaged foods) will be excluded from its purview. In addition, newer techniques such as gene editing, synthetic biology and RNAi are not subject to labeling.</p> <p>“The rule is inconsistent with international norms and is already out of date when it comes to current technologies,” said IATP <a href=";H=btYXC68syxmDVppbhVzFoYHdeMNV9070xvOlf%2FNdDQ0wXj6aidRhmykk8xxBg2CiXWHbTyykKPB9ufWavqGz5elhRpQg1jbxs9GIufQVPXko5%2Fks5%2BSpV51aJqzr7ypZ&amp;G=0&amp;;I=20181220195713.0000019bccf5%40mail6-114-ussnn1&amp;X=MHwxMDQ2NzU4OjVjMWJmNDE3ZWY0NDg1MGExZjcwMzZiYTsxfDEwNDY3NTk6dHJ1ZTs%3D&amp;S=k_P0B6cGl47PS3yii64-Vn-Q2s95-q64nBr1e-a53Kg">Senior Policy Analyst Dr. Steve Suppan</a>.</p> <p>Over 14,000 consumers and organizations, <a href=";H=btYXC68syxmDVppbhVzFoYHdeMNV9070xvOlf%2FNdDQ0wXj6aidRhmykk8xxBg2CiXWHbTyykKPB9ufWavqGz5elhRpQg1jbxs9GIufQVPXko5%2Fks5%2BSpV51aJqzr7ypZ&amp;G=0&amp;;I=20181220195713.0000019bccf5%40mail6-114-ussnn1&amp;X=MHwxMDQ2NzU4OjVjMWJmNDE3ZWY0NDg1MGExZjcwMzZiYTsxfDEwNDY3NTk6dHJ1ZTs%3D&amp;S=CuDrYjJQR1omdtvZ0kxD-UFMLOBQhlUbFmAhHIMqN7w">including IATP</a>, submitted comments on the draft rule. Under its terms, the compliance won’t be mandatory until January 1. 2022.</p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-category field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Primary category</div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/agriculture2" hreflang="en">Agriculture</a></div> </div> </div> Thu, 20 Dec 2018 20:12:09 +0000 Chris Palmquist 43855 at Uprooted Episode 52: Ag Antitrust <span>Uprooted Episode 52: Ag Antitrust</span> <div class="field field--name-field-media field--type-entity-reference field--label-hidden field--items"> <div class="field--item"><article class="media media-audio view-mode-feature"> </article> </div> </div> <span><span lang="" about="/about/staff/account/josh-wise" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Josh Wise</span></span> <span>Thu, 12/20/2018 - 11:25</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>Josh talks with Ben Lilliston about a recent conference on anti-trust work in the agriculture sector.</p> <p> </p> <p><iframe height="80" src="" width="640"></iframe></p> </div> Thu, 20 Dec 2018 17:25:50 +0000 Josh Wise 43854 at COP 24: Time to draw the line between agribusiness and agriculture <span>COP 24: Time to draw the line between agribusiness and agriculture</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/2863" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Chris Palmquist</span></span> <span>Mon, 12/17/2018 - 10:34</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>For an agriculture decision in 2020 to be meaningful, substantive and truly allow for agriculture to contribute to the 1.5°C pathway and become climate resilient, the UNFCCC, governments and IGOs must begin today to make a distinction between agribusiness and agriculture (including the food growers that represent 88 percent of global farmlands).</p> </div> Mon, 17 Dec 2018 16:34:24 +0000 Chris Palmquist 43852 at Status quo Farm Bill falters on economic, climate challenges <div data-history-node-id="43851" class="node node--type-document node--view-mode-rss field-primary-category-agriculture has-field-primary-category has-field-teaser-image title-not-empty ds-1col clearfix"> <h3 > By sidestepping the issues of economic and climate resilience, Congress is ignoring the transformative changes needed in agriculture</h3> <div class="field field--name-field-author field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Author</div> <div class="field__items"> <div class="field--item"><a href="/about/staff/iatp" hreflang="en">IATP</a></div> </div> </div> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p>MINNEAPOLIS—The 2018 Farm Bill passed by Congress on Wednesday is largely status quo from the 2014 version and will continue to drive overproduction and low farm income while ignoring the stark realities of climate change, commented the <a href=";H=5eXH0qSKdBRphS6WO4YlQwwSTi8wtQOqejFjZKiddbCzZ5Bbl4XDYa3p%2Fjf56oPyRnpyLRsmMPicpz8I%2B1YOKMDhFqAwa4uX%2BdAQy3moEfxzIWpJphSQLA%3D%3D&amp;G=0&amp;;I=20181213162852.00000180319f%40mail6-43-usnbn1&amp;X=MHwxMDQ2NzU4OjVjMTI3ZWZhM2RhNmNjZWYyNTRkMjQ0YTs%3D&amp;S=ypuNEQBgbQByn5_6OdXxwMFlppBMikGIsclCAYYIq2U">Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy</a> (IATP).  </p> <p>“Only weeks after a devastating National Climate Assessment outlined the rising risks to agriculture, this Farm Bill remains largely in climate denial,” said <a href=";H=5eXH0qSKdBRphS6WO4YlQwwSTi8wtQOqejFjZKiddbCzZ5Bbl4XDYa3p%2Fjf56oPyRnpyLRsmMPicpz8I%2B1YOKMDhFqAwa4uX%2BdAQy3moEfxzIWpJphSQLA%3D%3D&amp;G=0&amp;;I=20181213162852.00000180319f%40mail6-43-usnbn1&amp;X=MHwxMDQ2NzU4OjVjMTI3ZWZhM2RhNmNjZWYyNTRkMjQ0YTs%3D&amp;S=XfLaBtZikQQRc3Al3f3Z_hMYcYRiFKsWJeaI2bZXToA">Ben Lilliston</a>, IATP’s Director of Rural Strategies and Climate Change. “Climate disruptions are confronting farmers and rural communities on top of rising debt, increased corporate concentration and tariff conflicts with leading trade partners. Our concern is that this Farm Bill makes it likely that emergency payments will be needed in the coming years to keep farmers afloat.” </p> <p>The new Farm Bill largely maintains commodity crop programs (covering energy-intensive crops like corn, soy, wheat, rice and cotton) that are driving overproduction and often result in below-cost prices. While the new Farm Bill improves risk management tools for dairy farmers, the problem of dairy oversupply is largely unaddressed.  </p> <p>Popular conservation programs that support farmers in responding to climate change continue to be underfunded. The bill does improve the working lands Conservation Stewardship Program to encourage cover cropping, resource-conserving crop rotation, and advanced grazing systems—all practices that help farms adapt to climate change—though the program faces long-term cuts. And while the new Farm Bill expands funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), it leaves loopholes in place that subsidize new and expanded large-scale factory farms. Guaranteed loan programs through the Farm Service Agency also continue to support factory farms that spur overproduction, hurt independent farmers and ranchers, and increase air and water pollution in rural communities around the country.  </p> <p>“More than half of farmer applicants for CSP are turned away each year,” said <a href=";H=5eXH0qSKdBRphS6WO4YlQwwSTi8wtQOqejFjZKiddbCzZ5Bbl4XDYa3p%2Fjf56oPyRnpyLRsmMPicpz8I%2B1YOKMDhFqAwa4uX%2BdAQy3moEfxzIWpJphSQLA%3D%3D&amp;G=0&amp;;I=20181213162852.00000180319f%40mail6-43-usnbn1&amp;X=MHwxMDQ2NzU4OjVjMTI3ZWZhM2RhNmNjZWYyNTRkMjQ0YTs%3D&amp;S=YvNWoRLMaQqGwVpMBYDoUxFMAYAD17lAFFtGQbynvhM">Tara Ritter</a>, IATP Senior Program Associate. “This highly successful program needs to be accessible for all farmers who need it, given the urgent climate challenges we are facing.”   </p> <p>The new Farm Bill includes important programs that could support climate-resilient agriculture, including a pilot Soil Health and Income Protection Program (SHIPP) that will support farmers in Midwest states growing hay or doing sustainable grazing and expands funding for the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program and the Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative. Reforms in the crop insurance programs that better support the planting of soil health-building cover crops, and improvements in whole farm protection could aid small or mid-sized diversified farms.  </p> <p>The bill also provides permanent, baseline funding and significant policy improvements to programs that support local food systems and beginning and underserved farmers, including the new Farming Opportunities Training and Outreach (FOTO) program and the Local Agriculture Market Program (LAMP).  </p> <p>The bill also restores the Undersecretary of Rural Development as a permanent mandatory position, responding to a move by USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue to eliminate the position. A new Undersecretary will be critical to managing rural-focused programs that provide business and cooperative loans and broadband expansion—programs that will help rural economies that are disproportionately affected by climate change.  </p> <p>“By side-stepping the big issues of economic and climate resilience for farmers and rural communities, Congress is putting off the transformative changes in farm policy that will be needed in the near future,” said Lilliston.  </p> </div> <div class="field field--name-field-primary-category field--type-entity-reference field--label-above"> <div class="field--label">Primary category</div> <div class="field--item"><a href="/agriculture2" hreflang="en">Agriculture</a></div> </div> </div> Thu, 13 Dec 2018 17:02:19 +0000 Chris Palmquist 43851 at Different worlds at COP 24 <span>Different worlds at COP 24</span> <span><span lang="" about="/about/staff/account/colleen-borgendale" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Colleen Borgendale</span></span> <span>Tue, 12/11/2018 - 16:13</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><span><span><span>IATP spent the past week at COP 24 in Katowice, Poland. We wanted to connect with civil society groups working on climate, agriculture and land use, particularly on securing land, human and food rights of communities around the world. We hoped to learn how governments plan on addressing agriculture in climate negotiations.</span></span></span></p></div> Tue, 11 Dec 2018 22:13:16 +0000 Colleen Borgendale 43858 at Factory farms slip environmental review for USDA loans <span>Factory farms slip environmental review for USDA loans</span> <span><span lang="" about="/user/2863" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="">Chris Palmquist</span></span> <span>Thu, 12/06/2018 - 11:42</span> <div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"><p><span><span><span>In August 2016, the Department of Agriculture’s Farm Service Agency quietly announced a major change regarding its loan program for medium-sized Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). The agency would no longer require an environmental review under the <a href="">National Environmental Protection Act</a> (NEPA) prior to the approval of such loans. Nor would neighboring farmers, rural residents or local government officials have notice that such an operation was being built until construction began.</div> Thu, 06 Dec 2018 17:42:14 +0000 Chris Palmquist 43837 at