About IATP

The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy promotes resilient family farms, rural communities and ecosystems around the world through research and education, science and technology, and advocacy.

Founded in 1986, IATP is rooted in the family farm movement. With offices in Minneapolis and Geneva, IATP works on making domestic and global agricultural policy more sustainable for everyone.

IATP Web sites

• IATP home page
• Ag Observatory
• Trade Observatory
• Health Observatory
• Community Forestry Resource Center

About Think Forward

Think Forward is a blog written by staff of the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy covering sustainability as it intersects with food, rural development, international trade, the environment and public health.

Categories

• Alternative Policies
• Bioeconomy
• China
• Environment and Agriculture
• Farm and Food Policy
• Food Crisis
• Healthy Food
• Local Advantage
• Rural Communities
• Trade

Archives

• June 2008
• May 2008
• April 2008
• March 2008
• February 2008
• January 2008
• December 2007
• November 2007
• October 2007
• September 2007

RSS feeds

 Subscribe in a reader

Environment and Agriculture

June 19, 2008

Lessons from Forest Biomass

The "chicken or the egg" challenge of expanding renewable energy based on biomass has to do with finding a reliable source of biomass itself. We can't make the transition to using more biomass without a reliable supply. But it's difficult to find the supply, without the facilities to send it to?

One way out of this conundrum is to look where biomass is already being harvested and discarded as waste. A new IATP study released today reports on a series of test forest biomass harvests that target the removal of understory vegetation and dead material. An excess of this material can increase fire risks and hinder the health of the forest. Traditionally, that material (known ominously as the fuel load) has been removed and just disposed of or burned near the site.

The study found that at six of the nine test harvests, removing the biomass to reduce fire risks and using it for renewable energy production reduced overall costs. Researchers also found that by following sustainable harvest guidelines established by the Minnesota Forest Resource Council, adverse environmental effects on the soil, wildlife and other natural resources can be avoided.

IATP worked with the University of Minnesota, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, and the U.S. Forest Service on the project. You can read the Executive Summary, press release, and an interview with lead author, IATP's Don Arnosti.

—Ben Lilliston

June 09, 2008

Water, Water Everywhere - Part 2

IATP President Jim Harkness is blogging from China through June 14. (Due to internet access problems, Jim sent this blog via e-mail. I am posting it for him - Ben)

Of course, most of Shanghai’s (and China’s) water pollution is not as dramatic as a waste dump at the edge of a water source protection area. But runoff from agriculture is a major form of “non-point source” pollution. The highly intensive vegetable farming practiced here (often in plastic greenhouses, see below) exhausts the soil quickly, so huge amounts of fertilizer are used. And because appearance is so important for these crops, pesticide use is also high.

These are also thirsty crops, so irrigation is nearly universal. The state has traditionally organized irrigation. Much of the land around Shanghai was coastal marsh before being reclaimed for farming and urban development. Now it’s crisscrossed with canals. (See the Shanghai Co-op Watergate below)

Aquaculture requires even more water than vegetable production. With seafood-loving Shanghai nearby, this is a popular activity here. It's also highly polluting.

In my field visit with WWF Shanghai staff, we met a local entrepreneur who claims he will change all that. Allen Qian (in the red shirt below) has a background in fisheries and engineering. He claims to have developed a “green” production system for shrimp and other seafood, using no artificial growth stimulants and returning clean water to the canals that drain the site of his proposed development.

There was an aquaculture expert along with us, so I confess I couldn’t follow all the details of their technical discussion of waste disposal and stocking rates and water treatment, but construction was clearly moving right along. Mr. Qian pointed out several areas that will be artificial wetlands designed to filter organic waste from water as it flows through them. His enthusiasm about developing environmentally-sound production systems (there will also be “ecological” rice production at an adjacent site) was encouraging, given the rest of what we saw that day (see a more typical Shanghai Aquaculture site below).

What surprised me the most, however, was the degree to which his costs were being covered by the government. The infrastructure had all been built and maintained by local government, including roads and of course the canal system. His financing will be with a concessionary government loan, which is technically going to a co-operative that Mr. Qian is forming with locals. The land will be rented at a very generous rate from the local village government. And as we were going down the list of costs, I eventually got to the most important factor in his production operation, the priceless substance without which agriculture and aquaculture are unimaginable.

“Water? Oh, that’s free.”

—Ben Lilliston

June 06, 2008

China’s Biggest Organic Store?

IATP President Jim Harkness is blogging from China through June 14. (Due to internet access problems, Jim sent this blog via e-mail. I am posting it for him - Ben)

Last fall when I was in China, I saw an item in the paper announcing the opening of the country’s biggest “organic food store” in Tianjin, with over 800 square meters of space. Well, that’s not exactly huge, but I figured that if it’s the biggest in a country of 1.4 billion, then it might be a better place than an organic exhibition to learn about how ordinary people feel about this sector. More specifically, I wanted to see for myself the price difference between organic and conventional foods in China.

With a population of around 15 million, Tianjin is another one of those gigantic Chinese cities that no one outside of the country has ever heard of. (In fact, there are over 180 cities here with over 1 million residents.) I was surprised to learn that the Yi Nong Da Supermarket was not located downtown, but in a “Development Zone” called Binhai, about 50 kilometers from the city center. This industrial suburb turned out to be huge though, with a million or so inhabitants, and the store seemed right in place in a commercial street adjacent to some high-density housing.

Despite the name on the sign, however, it took a while to find any organic food in the store. About four-fifths of the floor space was dedicated to instant noodles, Snickers, toothpaste and Chinese convenience store fare like shredded squid (regular, BBQ or Cool Ranch). Along the back wall, the produce section had a sign proclaiming, “Fresh Organic Vegetables,” but for 20 minutes or so none of the few customers ventured anywhere nearby. Finally, a construction worker came in and made a bee line for the bananas. I asked if they were organic bananas and he said they were.

Me:  Why are you buying them?

Him: They taste good.

Me: Aren’t they expensive?

Him: No.

Now we’re getting somewhere! If ordinary workers are willing to pay extra for organic food, then maybe there is hope for the domestic market. I followed up with questions about how often he shops here, whether his co-workers buy these products, etc, carefully recording his answers until a clerk came over and said, “The bananas aren’t organic.” In fact, when I started actually checking the labels I found that none of the produce was organic! The fruit was conventional and the vegetables were “Pollution Free” (wugonghai), a uniquely Chinese designation that seems to mean that no more than the recommended amounts of pesticides have been applied.

Since I didn’t have any organic products for my price comparison, I jotted down the prices of some pollution-free veggies. They seemed fairly reasonable, certainly not three times the cost of ordinary vegetables, but in my hour at the store I didn’t see anyone purchase even these less expensive products. The store manager said that usually there are more customers, and that about 20 percent of their customers buy pollution-free food regularly. To assure quality, Yi Ning grows its own vegetables on “bases” in several different provinces, but she said that it’s tough for them to compete because being in the suburbs, they have many vegetable farmers right nearby who claim that their goods are also pollution-free. I asked why she thinks more people don’t grow 100 percent organic, and she said: “If you don’t use fertilizers, they (vegetables) grow very slowly. Since people want to earn money quickly, they feel like they have to use some pesticides and fertilizers.”

From Yinong, I went to a nearby Tesco, one of the several big box stores competing in China’s retail market. The results of my survey are shown below. (The unit is Chinese yuan per kilogram, and there currently about 7 yuan in a U.S. dollar.)

No one seemed to be buying pollution-free veggies in Tesco either, but given their huge mark-up compared to both conventional and Yi Nong pollution free, it wasn’t too surprising. Despite not being a cost comparison with certified organics, this survey showed that the price differentials for “healthier” food are indeed much greater than the 20-30 percent found in U.S. or European markets. And the studious avoidance of these products by shoppers in both stores made it clear that the price difference is indeed a huge barrier to the development of a domestic organic market in China.

On my way out of Tesco, I passed people lined up to taste little spoonfuls of Skippy peanut butter being dispensed by a young woman in a mini-skirt, and was reminded of another big challenge for organics in China: marketing. At the BioFach exhibition, more than one vendor had complained that most people have no idea what organic means, so of course they aren’t willing to pay more for it.

—Ben Lilliston

May 29, 2008

Organic Food in China

IATP President Jim Harkness is blogging from China through June 14.

After a restful overnight train ride down to Shanghai from Beijing, I was able to check into my hotel and still make it to the opening of the BioFach China 2008 International Organic Trade Fair and Conference.

There are over 300 exhibitors and the organizers expect 10,000 or more people to attend. The crowd today was mostly Chinese, many of them organic producers and people considering converting to organic. Lots of people were simply enjoying the free samples of organic everything: rice, dumplings, honey, walnuts, pork, corn on the cob, milk, tea, fruit and vegetables. Admission was free as long as you filled out a registration form and a variety of non-organic entrepreneurs clearly saw this as an opportunity. Three different men offered me fake Rolexes inside the exhibition! I kept expecting to see knockoff “Organic” brand vegetables for sale. I also met people from as far away as Fiji, Trinidad and Ghana--all of them from government import inspection agencies.

The vast majority of products being exhibited were Chinese-grown and intended for export, but speakers at a workshop being held concurrently with the exhibition pointed out that this is a less and less promising area. No one talked explicitly about the food safety scandals of the past year, but Mr. Chuk Ng of Naturz Organics pointed out that more and more products are being turned back by customs agents in Europe. Mr. Li Xianjun of the China Organic Food Certification Center (COFCC) noted that organics are a shrinking percentage of China’s agriculture exports. Ong Kung Wai, representing IFOAM (International Federation of Organic Movements), said that only 3 percent of all global organic sales are currently outside of Europe and North America (and most of that is probably in Japan). He urged producers in China to focus on “growing” the domestic organic market.

We at IATP also see the potential for organic agriculture in China to help feed their domestic market. Government support for both organic food and food safety are currently almost entirely focused on exports, leaving 1.4 billion Chinese consumers with a deeply compromised and unsustainable food supply. Surveys have consistently shown that China’s urban middle class is concerned about the safety and quality of their food supply and willing to pay more for food they can trust. But an exhibitor, Thomas Lin from Garden Citi Inc, explained to me that the term “organic” is unfamiliar in China, and there is rampant counterfeiting of “green foods.” One of the speakers in the workshop said that there is also a much larger price premium for organics in China than in the West. Here organics are generally three times as expensive as equivalent conventionally-grown products. In the U.S., the difference is closer to 25 percent.

Why is there such a great difference in price? Are there obstacles for organic agriculture in China? Or subsidies supporting conventional agriculture that make it so much cheaper? Tune in again…

—Jim Harkness

May 27, 2008

A Global Liability System for Biotech Companies?

The battle over genetically engineered (GE) crops continues to be fiercely fought and shows no sign of easing up. Clashes have taken place on the farm, in the supermarket aisles and at global institutions like the World Trade Organization and the United Nations.

Last week, another shot was fired across the bow of the biotech companies. The 147 countries who are parties to the Biodiversity Convention's Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety agreed to set rules "for liability and redress for potential damage caused by the movement of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)" to native plants or animals. In essence, this new international regime will set rules for holding biotech companies accountable for damages associated with the technology. IATP's Kristin Dawkins proposed ideas for how such a liability regime could work in this 2004 paper.

The agreement is expected to turn into an accord to be approved at a 2010 meeting in Japan. Over the next two years, participants will decide how responsibility for damages will be determined and how damage amounts will be assigned. The agribusiness publication Feedstuffs reports that while the legal details are unclear, the burden of proof will likely be with the injured party and predicts the rules will mean little changes for industrialized countries. However, the new rules might improve legal standing for developing countries in cases where damages occur.

Apparently several major biotech companies were concerned with the agreement. Friends of the Earth International reported on a last minute effort by six biotech companies to push an alternative proposal that would settle damages related to genetic contamination through private compensation with individual countries, rather than a global set of liability rules.

Where is the U.S. in all this? The agreement would not be legally binding in the U.S. because it has not ratified the 1992 Biodiversity Convention and thus is not a party to the Cartegna Protocol. It's hard to imagine the U.S. government supporting such a system. Here in the U.S., we've struggled just to protect farmers who have had their crops unknowingly contaminated with GE material from getting sued by Monsanto.

In September 2006, the Bush Administration and biotech companies won a victory at the WTO by arguing that the European Union's regulatory system for GE crops violated trade rules. Now, the UN-based treaty system answers back.

The battle over GE crops has gone on for over 15 years - and still going strong.

—Ben Lilliston

May 22, 2008

USDA to Eliminate Pesticide Tracking

One of the main promises made by supporters of genetically engineered crops was that the technology would reduce pesticide use. Unfortunately, the data didn't back up the rhetoric. A backgrounder by the Center for Food Safety found that herbicide use to fight weeds in the U.S. has spiked upwards since 2002 for cotton, corn and soybeans - crops with the highest adoption rate of genetically engineered seeds.

How do we know herbicide use is up? The U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service compiles data on pesticide use through extensive farmer surveys and breaks it down by crop, pesticide and state. 

The NASS has been gradually scaling back its pesticide reporting program. In the 1990s, NASS issued reports every year. For most of this decade it has been every two years. Now, the agency says it will completely eliminate the program. This is beyond unacceptable.

Pesticide reporting data is absolutely critical to understanding the effect these toxic chemicals have on wildlife and water. We need to understand how these chemicals effect public health, including the health of farmers, people living rural communities and consumers. For example, last month IATP published a fact sheet on the connection between pesticide exposure and Parkinson's disease. And finally, we need to understand the effects in the fieldin areas such as yields and weed and pest resistance.

Yesterday, IATP and 43 other environmental, sustainable farming and health advocacy groups sent a letter to the USDA calling on the agency to reverse its plan to eliminate the pesticide reporting program. The USDA claims the program's elimination is simply a budgetary issue. But certainly the hidden costs to our health and the environment of living in the dark about pesticide use in the U.S. will be much greater.

—Ben Lilliston

May 19, 2008

Food, Water and Climate Challenges

Food prices rose 4 percent in the United States last year, the highest rise since 1990. All over the world food prices are on the rise. At the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank finance ministers wanted to focus the world’s attention on food crisis rather than the credit crisis. There are many factors contributing to this current crisis, including the rising price of oil, deregulated agricultural markets, financial speculation and biofuels. Another key factor is climate change, which is affecting
crop yield and food production. It is time for us to get serious about understanding the way climate change affects water resources for food production and conversely the way agricultural water use is leading to climate change.

In January, scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in the U.S. published an article in the journal Science that said what many climate change experts had already been saying for some time: global warming is responsible for the extreme changes that we see in the hydrological cycle in the western U.S. Moreover, the scientists from Scripps found that up to 60 percent of the climate-related trends of river flow, winter air temperature and snow pack between 1950 and 1999 are human-induced.

While the Scripps scientists analyzed data for the western United States, similar changes have been happening around the world in the second half of the twentieth century. The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) found that “climate and freshwater systems are interconnected in complex ways and that any change in one of these systems induces a change in the other.” The IPCC further concluded that the changes in precipitation patterns and glacier melts are projected to significantly affect water availability for an entire range of socially valued water uses, including human consumption, agriculture and energy generation.

The most dramatic effect of climate change is likely to be on agricultural production. The impact is already manifesting itself in countries such as Australia. The global price of wheat hit its highest level in decades in December, partly due to Australia's drought. Irrigated agriculture accounts for almost 70 percent of world water withdrawals and close to 90 percent of the total consumptive water use (the portion that is lost to the
immediate environment for use). Existing irrigation and drainage infrastructures have been designed for stable climate conditions. They are very likely inadequate to cope with extreme climatic variations in precipitation and reduced water supply reliability and availability, as well as floods. On the other hand, since irrigation accounts for such a large percentage of total water withdrawals, any reduction in irrigation water use (either through introducing water use efficient technologies or through changing agroecological
practices) will go a long way in coping with climate-related water stress especially, in water-stressed regions.

While irrigated agriculture accounts for 40 percent of global food production, the remaining 60 percent of world’s food crops are produced by those practicing rain-fed agriculture. Such agriculture covers more than 80 percent of global agricultural land. In these regions, particularly those without local water conservation measures, crop productivity depends on sufficient precipitation to meet both evaporative demand and soil moisture needs. Any variation in precipitation patterns and temperature increases can affect crop productivity substantially. The IPCC predicts that in some countries, “yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent by 2020.” This would most certainly affect food security in many communities and nations.

But it is not only that climate change-related water stress will affect agriculture. The converse is also true: current water use patterns and associated practices contribute to climate change. It is noteworthy that the two sectors in the world that use the most water, chemical intensive agriculture and fossil fuel-based energy production, are also the biggest contributors to global warming, which in turn further increases water stress in many regions. For example, agriculture, as it is practiced now, sequesters much less carbon than it used to because of land use changes. A recent report by Greenpeace, “Cool Farming: Climate Impacts of Agriculture and Mitigation Potential,” found that “industrial, chemical-intensive agriculture degrades the soil and destroys the resources that are critical to storing carbon, such as forests and other vegetation.”

There are a number of ways in which national agricultural, trade and energy policies affect both water resources of a nation and climate change at the global level. Let us take a brief look at irrigated agriculture. Irrigation water use increased dramatically in most parts of the world in the second half of 20th century. This was abetted by the building of massive water systems including dams, reservoirs, aqueducts, pipelines and canals that brought water to otherwise water scarce regions. This growth in irrigated agriculture is part of an unprecedented expansion of chemical intensive agriculture that was originally sold as a way to feed the world and also to increase export earnings through commodity-based trade.

The pursuit of export-led growth in agriculture has also been dependent on intensive use of fossil fuel-based chemical inputs, contributing greatly to climate change. In addition, the transport of agricultural commodities around the world and intensive agricultural practices (such as confined animal feedlots and indiscriminate fertilizer-use) also contributes to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. According to the World Bank’s 2008 report on agriculture, intensive agriculture directly contributes about half of the global emissions of two of the most potent non-carbon dioxide GHGs: “Nitrous oxide emissions from soils (from fertilizer application and manures) and methane from enteric fermentation in livestock production.” Each account for about one-third of the farm sector's total non-carbon dioxide emissions and are projected to rise with increased meat consumption becoming a norm in emerging economies.

Agricultural practices geared towards growing export-oriented monoculture crops are chemical intensive and have resulted in high levels of pollution in local water systems. In addition, nitrogen (N) used in fertilizers leaches into water courses increasing the indirect nitrous oxide emissions downstream. This model of production has intensified water use, both in terms of the water going into the growing of the commodities themselves, but also in terms of inter-basin water transfers.

Protecting our waters in local watersheds and wetlands and using them judiciously in support of local agricultural systems and livelihood practices, rather than continuing with the current strategy of promoting export-oriented, monoculture, industrial, water-guzzling agricultural systems, is key to reducing the water sector’s direct contributions to climate change. Moreover local practices that conserve and enhance local water availability to ensure resilience of rain-fed agricultural systems are necessary as an adaptation mechanism, to meet climate challenges and to help meet food security goals, two of the biggest challenges for developing countries today. It is time to reevaluate our agricultural policies that promote water and energy intensive agriculture.

We will have to make some major changes in our agriculture systems to address some of the upcoming climate challenges. Doing so will help us cope with extreme changes in the hydrological cycle and resultant food and water crises many communities and nations are sure to face. Effective and sustainable water management in agriculture in support of healthy food systems needs to be part of the climate solution.

—Shiney Varghese

May 14, 2008

Farm Bill a Missed Opportunity

The 2008 Farm Bill to be voted on by the House and Senate this week includes incremental gains for conservation, renewable energy, food aid and healthier, local food systems. However, it fails to reverse decades of deregulation that have increased agricultural market volatility to the benefit of global food corporations, and at the expense of farmers, consumers, rural communities and the environment.

Unfortunately, this Farm Bill does nothing to reverse the trend toward windfall profits for global food conglomerates. These companies have succeeded in pushing an extreme agricultural market deregulation agenda over the past three farm bills, including this one.

Congress dismantled grain reserves, acreage set asides and other market management mechanisms in the 1996 Farm Bill. Since then, agribusiness companies have reaped enormous profits. For example, Cargill’s profits increased nearly 1000 percent from $280 million in FY1997-98 to $2.34 billion by FY2006-07. In April 2008, Cargill reported net earnings of $1.03 billion in third quarter earnings, up 86 percent from $553 million in the same period a year ago.

These same global food corporations saw increased profits when farm prices collapsed by 40 percent after the market deregulation of the 1996 Farm Bill, and they are making even more money now that food prices have risen to crisis levels. Market deregulation in effect privatizes crucial market information, which suppresses price transparency and price discovery. This, in turn, increases the ability of big firms to manipulate prices.

While the debate continues to rage over how many billions in taxpayer subsidies are needed to maintain a legitimate safety net for family farmers, it has been a few big corporations that have been the primary beneficiaries of our commodity programs. Researchers at Tufts University found that industrial animal factories, owned and controlled by these same corporations, enjoyed $35 billion in indirect subsidies by being able to buy feed crops at 20-25 percent below the cost of production – a practice supported by the last two Farm Bills. Unfortunately, these corporate beneficiaries have almost completely evaded scrutiny in the Farm Bill debate.

Two new reports, from the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production, have documented the negative public health, environmental and social impacts of this unsustainable model of industrial meat production. The UCS report calls for strengthening conservation programs and antitrust enforcement; while replacing commodity subsidies with price supports to curtail this multi-billion dollar, cheap-feed subsidy to industrial animal factories.

Another glaring failure of the pending Farm Bill was the lack of political will in the House-Senate Agriculture Conference Committee to strengthen antitrust enforcement. While there were peripheral gains in curtailing the worst abuses of increasingly exploitive contracts against farmers, a majority of the conferees caved-in to the corporate lobbyists on the more substantive market reforms, like the ban on packer feeding, that would have curtailed anticompetitive practices that deny independent farmers fair market access.

This lack of political resolve couldn’t have come at a worse time for independent cattle ranchers. JBS-Brazil has recently launched a takeover of two of the top five U.S. beef packers, National Beef and Smithfield; and the nation’s largest cattle feeder, Five Rivers Ranch Cattle Feeding. If approved by the Justice Department, the merger would make JBS-Brazil—currently the largest beef packer in the world—the largest beef packer in the U.S. as well. Passage of the packer ban would have provided federal regulators with an important tool to potentially block JBS-Brazil from acquiring Five Rivers, and thereby might have mitigated one of the most anticompetitive aspects of the acquisition.

On the positive side of the ledger, the new Farm Bill does contain important bioenergy incentives. One important new program is the Bioenergy Crop Transition Assistance Program, which would provide farmers with financial incentives and technical assistance to accelerate the growing of “Next Generation” bioenergy feedstocks. It is based on the Reinvest in Minnesota Reserve–Clean Energy bill recently passed by the Minnesota Legislature. IATP worked in collaboration with other groups and members of Minnesota’s Congressional delegation to adapt its primary concepts into the Farm Bill.

This new innovative program will help farmers produce ethanol with native prairie grasses and other cellulosic plants, thereby reducing the pressure to grow more corn for ethanol; a prospect that is becoming increasingly controversial by the day. We want to thank Senator Klobuchar and Representatives Peterson and Walz, for their leadership on the agriculture committees in supporting this initiative based on the “Minnesota Model,” and succeeding in getting it included in the final bill.

Although IATP pushed hard to include another provision to require that biorefineries receiving federal support must be at least 51 percent community-owned, that provision was watered down to become one of several criteria that must be considered under the new bioenergy program. However, another provision does require that wages paid by federally supported biorefineries meet prevailing union wages in the region where the plant is located. Like local ownership, this important provision will help keep the wealth generated by the new bioeconomy circulating in rural communities, and not just siphoned off by Wall Street investors.

The Farm Bill agreement would also significantly bolster spending for conservations programs. For example, the bill would allocate $12 billion to a revamped Conservation Stewardship Program, which would help bring an estimated 115 million acres of working farm and ranch lands under improved conservation management practices over the next 10 years.

In supporting local food systems, one important provision would allow local and state governments to provide a “geographic preference” through federal procurement programs for locally grown foods. Another provision would provide funding for new local and regional food supply networks, including $33 million in mandatory federal funding for the Farmers Market Promotion Program. Additionally, the inclusion of a revamped country-of-origin labeling provision, along with allowing the interstate shipment of state-inspected meats, should increase marketing opportunities for independent livestock producers.

Another important provision is the inclusion of the Diversity Initiative, a policy package developed by unified rural and urban agricultural interests of African American, American Indian, Latino, Asian American and other small farmers and ranchers all across the United States. This package redresses outstanding issues of civil rights violations and significant land loss suffered by minority farmers because of inadequate policies at the United States Department of Agriculture, including a $75 million investment in the Socially Disadvantaged Farmer Outreach Program.

In the area of food aid reform, the bill includes a scaled-down pilot program that would allocate $15 million dollars annually to experiment with cash purchases for international food aid. A 2005 IATP report, U.S. Food Aid: Time to Get it Right, outlines the enormous problems in the current program. The report documents how the current program can result in the dumping of surplus commodities on developing countries’ markets in a manner that undermines local farmers, and can therefore harm long-term food production capacity. This pilot project is an important, albeit small, step forward in reforming the current U.S. Food Aid regime.

Finally, the Farm Bill extends the sugar program at a crucial time when it is under siege from the final phase-in of deregulation mandated by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). It contains a new program that would use the growing sugar surpluses created by NAFTA and other free trade agreements to supplement corn ethanol production. This program could help stabilize corn prices, but also raises new questions about how much sugar and ethanol imports from outside of North America should be regulated.

Renewal of the Sugar Program, and the accompanying sugar ethanol provision, would provide more time for Mexican and U.S. sugar growers to continue pushing for an alternative agreement for “managed trade” for the sweetener market in North America, rather than simply standing by and allowing unbridled NAFTA deregulation to go forward unabated. We fear that the deregulation of the North American sweetener market will result in the destruction of the U.S. and Mexican sugar industries, which in turn will launch another wave of migration of farmers and workers who would be displaced from the Mexican sugar market that would rival the migration caused by U.S. corn dumping into Mexico in the 1990s.

Despite these incremental gains, the new Farm Bill does little to change the overall unsustainable direction of U.S. commodity policy. Neither the payment caps, nor the experimental revenue insurance program contained in this Farm Bill, challenge the premise of market deregulation. At the same time, the 1996 dismantling of publicly held grain reserves has left regulators without one of the most important tools to stabilize rising food prices in times of extreme market volatility such as we are experiencing today.

The so-called “commodity reforms” will do nothing to reverse trends toward increased market concentration, speculation and manipulation, indirect cheap feed subsidies to industrial meat production, increasingly volatile agricultural markets, or rising food prices.

It‘s time to rethink the fundamental assumption from the Enron era that market deregulation solves all problems. We need to reconsider an appropriate level of government intervention to mitigate inevitable market failures, such as those we are now experiencing with high levels of damaging market volatility.

For starters, Congress should consider how to best go about re-establishing strategic grain reserves to stabilize commodity prices, and to secure some predictability of feedstock availability for investors in the new bioeconomy. Additionally, Congress should hold hearings to review and, when appropriate, block pending and future mergers like JBS-Brazil; to explore the role that corporate speculators are playing in causing increased volatility in commodity markets; and to identify additional agricultural market reforms to increase price transparency and curtail damaging commodity speculation and price manipulation.

—R. Dennis Olson

May 06, 2008

Biofuels and Biodiversity

The biofuel sector has grown so rapidly around the world, we are all still coming to grips with its impact - both good and bad - on the farm and food economy. A new report by IATP's Dr. Dennis Keeney and Claudia Nanninga finds that the first generation of biofuel feedstocks is exacerbating many of the environmentally-destructive practices of the current industrial model of agriculture. Specifically, the biodiversity of several of the major biofuel-producing countries is being threatened as feedstock production extends onto native vegetation.

Below is a press release from today:

Biofuels Contributing to Changing Land-Use Patterns, Affecting Biodiversity – New Report

Minneapolis – Increasing production of crops for biofuels is exacerbating agriculture’s impact on biodiversity in many parts of the world, finds a new report by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP).

The report, “Biofuel and Global Biodiversity,” is by Dr. Dennis Keeney and Claudia Nanninga and is available at: www.iatp.org. The paper includes case studies of three regions that have been growing much of the feedstock for biofuels around the world: the U.S., Brazil and Malaysia/Indonesia.

“Ethanol and biodiesel are being overlaid on a broken agricultural production system,” said Dr. Keeney. “Many of the biodiversity impacts of biofuel feedstock production are not inherent to biofuel, but are more a symptom of damaging agricultural production systems and policies.”

The report found that in the U.S., increased corn planting is reducing the diversity of crop rotations and threatening wetlands and acreage set aside for conservation. In Brazil, greater sugarcane production for ethanol is moving into the fragile, diverse Cerrado region, and soy production for biodiesel is contributing to significant destruction of the Amazon rainforest. Perhaps the largest loss of biodiversity is occurring in the rainforests of Malaysia and Indonesia, where palm oil plantations are rapidly being established to feed the growing demand for biodiesel in Europe and elsewhere.

The paper found that the biofuel industry has expanded due to two complementary drivers: the increase in the price of crude oil and national policies to encourage the production and use of biofuel. It concluded that future policy solutions need to focus on:

• Protecting rainforests and fragile, native ecosystems and indigenous lands – The most significant biodiversity threat is from biofuel feedstock production that extends onto native vegetation;
• Making sustainability a priority in all biofuel production – Policies should encourage more sustainable production of existing biofuel feedstocks – and accelerate the transition to more sustainable next generation biofuel feedstocks;
• Moderating price volatility in agricultural commodities – An updated supply management system could stabilize market prices and reduce incentives to encroach on native vegetation;
• Redesigning our agricultural and energy sectors – Agriculture and energy policies should prioritize local production and use.

“Public policy has been a major driver in the development of the biofuel industry,” said Jim Harkness, IATP President. “In moving forward, smarter policy is crucial if biofuel production is going to protect and enhance – rather than decimate – global biodiversity.”

—Ben Lilliston

April 17, 2008

So Thirsty…Throat is Parched…Need Water….

IATP Senior Fellow Mark Muller is working in a volunteer program in Honduras through July. He is blogging periodically on his experiences there.

Ok, perhaps I am being a little melodramatic. We have plenty of purified water to drink. But we are now in day four of not having water in our taps and it’s all that I can think about.

Our water tends to go out once or twice a week, usually for a day or less. We have three pilas in the house, which provide about two day’s worth of water to bathe, wash dishes, wash clothes, and flush toilets. So day one tends to go by without much thought of conservation – we live like we normally do, with the expectation that it will come back on soon. Day two forces us to change some habits, like putting off the washing of clothes.

Day three puts some stress on relationships. Was it important to wash your hair today? Did you really have to use that water to flush the toilet?

And now we are in day four. I volunteered not to bathe today (although hygiene has never been one of my strengths). I washed the breakfast dishes in a calculated manner, starting with the glasses and progressing toward the dirtier silverware and bowls. I then took the dishwater and used it to water my prized watermelon plants.

I’m constantly pouring myself glasses of water – just the concept of water shortages makes the body crave more. You may need a glass after reading this post.

What’s my point in writing this? When living in the States, I’m sure that I used about the daily average of 70 gallons per person. We are now getting by with about three gallons per person per day, and I’ve discovered many creative ways of reusing water. Necessity is certainly the mother of invention, and perhaps the increasing number of water shortages around the globe, coupled with the increasing cost of obtaining water, will result in some more creative thinking about water conservation and use. A recent post by my colleague Shiney Varghese pointed out some of the challenges the U.S. is starting to face with water. My mind has certainly become focused on the topic.

—Mark Muller

April 16, 2008

Corporate Spying and GE Crops

Nine years ago, IATP was part of new coalition called GE Food Alert. The coalition included the Center for Food Safety, Organic Consumers Association, Friends of the Earth, U.S. PIRG, and the National Environmental Trust. We were taking on the biotech industry, demanding tougher pre-market testing for environmental and health risks before new genetically engineered foods entered the market, as well as labeling for consumers. To illustrate how little monitoring was going on with new GE crops, we tested Taco Bell taco shells and found that they contained a genetically engineered corn, known as StarLink, that had not been approved for human consumption because of allergy concerns.

The stakes were extremely high. Genetically engineered corn and soybeans were being grown throughout the Midwest, but there was little to no segregation going on – GE and non-GE crops were mixed together, and still are for the most part. Major food companies like Kraft were stuck using GE crops, whether they liked it or not. Government agencies like the USDA and EPA were doing very little monitoring in the fields – and still aren’t. In many ways, the entire agriculture and food industry along with government agencies were drawn into defending GE crops by their premature introduction into the marketplace.

So, there were some powerful forces challenging our campaign. We knew that. But a remarkable article by Jim Ridgeway in the new Mother Jones paints a bigger, and more alarming, picture of what we were up against. The article outlines how former cops and secret service agents worked at a private security firm that spied on GE Food Alert as well as Greenpeace, including searching through garbage, attempting to plant undercover operatives, collecting phone records, and penetrating confidential meetings. The firm had many clients, including public relations firms who worked for the major food and biotech companies.

For more details, you can listen to this interview with Ridgeway on Democracy Now and read Greenpeace's response to the story.

The article is a disturbing look at corporate espionage and the enormous stakes at play over GE foods. We still know very little about the long-term environmental effects of planting GE crops or the long-term health effects of eating them. The biotech industry has made a lot of money on corn, soybeans and cotton (mostly used as animal feed or ingredients in processed food) – but has struggled to introduce new GE crops, including wheat, that are more directly eaten.

Ridgeway’s article is important as we move forward. It once again begs the same simple questions we've been asking all along: why is the industry so scared of comprehensive pre-market testing and basic food labeling of genetically engineered food?

—Ben Lilliston

April 14, 2008

Trade Rules and Biofuels

The global biofuel market has grown so quickly that international trade and investment rules aren’t prepared to handle the multiple challenges arising from this new sector. As an example, the World Trade Organization treats ethanol and biodiesel very differently under its rules. At the same time, the clearing of land to meet the growing need for biofuel feedstocks is causing a host of environmental problems, including threats to water and biodiversity (a topic IATP will tackle in an upcoming report). 

In a new paper published with our friends at the International Institute for Environment and Development,  IATP’s Sophia Murphy outlines how global rules will shape the biofuel market and how new rules are needed to support environmental sustainability, rural development and human rights. Below is our press release on the paper from today:

Global Trade Rules to Shape Biofuel Market

Minneapolis – The long-term sustainability of the fast-moving global biofuel market will depend on changes to international trade and investment rules that govern energy, environment, agriculture and rural development, according to a new paper published by the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) and the London-based International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

“This industry has developed so quickly that governments at all levels, but particularly at the global level, have been slow to set rules on how to manage its growth,” said Sophia Murphy, IATP Senior Advisor and author of the paper. “It is critical that governments set global rules that support environmental sustainability and economic development for more than just a few companies.”

The paper, “The Multilateral Trade and Investment Context for Biofuels: Issues and Challenges,” outlines the different interests of the largest global players in the biofuel market, including the U.S., European Union and Brazil. The paper analyzes biofuel trade within the context of World Trade Organization rules governing agriculture, environmental goods, services, patents and investment. Biofuels raise a number of tricky trade questions, including: the acceptability of production and processing methods (PPMs) as a basis for discrimination among goods; the legitimacy of trade restrictive measures that support goals set in multilateral environmental agreements; and the effects of private standards on market access.

Current biofuel feedstocks are energy-intensive and involve largely industrial-scale monocultural production. In parts of the world, biofuel feedstock production is taking a heavy environmental toll on water, soil, and ecological biodiversity. Investment from foreign firms seeking biofuel feedstock is also aggravating land disputes and intensifying the political fight to protect food security. The paper discusses some of the issues on developing sustainability standards for biofuel production and calls for a multilateral discussion to set trade and investment rules that support a fair and sustainable biofuel sector.

“International guidelines could complement what will ultimately be local and national decisions,” said Murphy. “Such guidelines could carve out space for policies that are dictated by human rights and environmental norms, and could help to reshape trade and investment obligations to be more supportive of sustainable development.”

The paper can be read at: www.iatp.org.

The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy works at the intersection of policy and practice to ensure fair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems for all people. www.iatp.org. IIED is an independent, non-profit research institute working in the field of sustainable development at the local, national, regional and global level. www.iied.org.

—Ben Lilliston

April 11, 2008

Patent Reform for Farmers

When genetically engineered (GE) crops were introduced onto the market over a decade ago, the rules of the game changed for many farmers. Farmers who used biotechnology no longer owned their seeds. Instead, they leased the patented technology for one growing season from biotech giants like Monsanto. And they were forbidden from saving seeds for the next year, as farmers have since forever.

The emergence of GE crops signalled a major shift in the balance of power on the farm. When farmers bought GE crops, they also gave permission to biotech companies to visit their farm and test their fields to assess whether the company's proprietary technology was being used appropriately. Farmers who didn't grow GE crops, but whose crop became contaminated from neighboring farms, became vulnerable to patent litigation. In a highly celebrated case, Monsanto accused Canadian canola farmer Percy Schmeiser of using its Roundup Ready technology, even though Schmeiser had never bought the seeds. You can read more about Percy's long-standing fight with Monsanto.

Seven years ago, IATP published a paper outlining the legal risks for farmers posed by GE crops. Since then, the Center for Food Safety published an important paper documenting over 100 Monsanto lawsuits against farmers for patent infringement.

This week, a coalition of farm groups from around the country, including IATP, sent a letter to Senate leaders in support of the Patent Reform Act of 2007 (S.1145). The bill would revise the standard for "willfulness" in the violation of patent law. This is particularly applicable to farmers who have had their crops contaminated with GE material from neighboring farms without their consent, but still found themselves in court. The bill would also restrict the ability of the plaintiff (biotech company) to select venues. By selecting far away venues, farmers have often had to travel a great distance from their farm to defend themselves in court. This has been used as yet another tactic to pressure farmers to settle these cases.

The record has been abysmal at the federal level in terms of protecting farmers' rights in relation to GE crops. Several states, including North and South Dakota and Indiana, have passed their own protections with regards to patent infringement. The Maine legislature just this week passed legislation that would prevent lawsuits for patent infringement against farmers whose farms have been contaminated with GE material from neighboring farms.

These steps at the state and federal level to protect farmers from GE crop patent litigation are long overdue. The next prudent step would be a system that holds biotech companies liable for economic damages, when their technology contaminates crops, and farmers lose out on organic or non-GE price premiums.

—Ben Lilliston

April 09, 2008

The Emerging U.S. Water Crisis - Part Two

Barely three years ago in the wake of hurricane Katrina IATP’s Mark Muller wrote: “The storm exposed some real vulnerability in the current agriculture system. As we recover from the tragedy of Katrina, we have an opportunity to rebuild and rethink how to strengthen agriculture, regional economies and the transportation and production infrastructure. He identified 10 areas of vulnerability exposed by Katrina, including energy, fertilizer, transportation markets for crops less dependent on inputs, CAFO regulation, on-farm water storage, valuing the commons and climate change.”

I find these areas of vulnerability particularly relevant when it comes to the current water crisis. Like Katrina, this crisis gives us yet another opportunity to rethink and challenge issues that we need to raise: land use planning that allows unfettered development, energy production that is water intensive, and agricultural water use that is inefficient from a hydrological perspective. So far we have assumed that we can undertake any development we want, wherever we want, or we could grow whatever we want,
however we want, and that water will always be available to support that growth. In the process we are draining our aquifers, polluting our rivers, tampering with ecosystems and destroying the diversity of life—as if nature is ours to be manipulated to suit our wants. It is time to change some of our practices.

For more than a century, the federal government has spent billions of dollars, building our dams, reservoirs, aqueducts and pipelines. Ironically, in the same way that extracting/ transporting and processing water consumes large amounts of energy, the operation of power plants consume large amounts of water. Thermal energy is one of the largest water users in the United States. However, irrigated agriculture accounts for 80 percent of
water consumed in the U.S. This high percentage is partially because of low water use-efficiency (the portion of water actually used by irrigated agriculture relative to the volume of water withdrawn).

For the western United States, agricultural farms are the single largest water user, half of which is used by the largest 10 percent of the farms. High levels of irrigation subsidies, combined with archaic water laws make water use in the western U.S. highly wasteful and inefficient. But there is room for improvement in agricultural water use in almost all parts of the U.S.

Water use should be such that for a given locale, appropriate incentives are put in place to ensure that water withdrawals do not exceed the recharge rate; that water conservation techniques (such as rain water harvesting) are central to land use planning; that improved irrigation efficiency and better nutrient management (to reduce non-point water pollution from farm run-offs) are rewarded; and that growing water-intensive crops in water scarce regions discouraged.

Legal judgments, such the recent case involving the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, are an attempt to reverse earlier actions by state and federal water managers that have damaged the water system. But much more is needed.

As Peter Gleick of the California based Pacific Institute points out in a recent article: “While predictions of economic disaster arising from the Delta decision may come true, they don't have to. But it will take a re-evaluation of our ideas about water-use and political courage by the governor, Legislature and water users to have open and honest discussions about how to redesign our water
system so that it is smart, efficient and sustainable.”

This is true for the nation as a whole: here in this land of plenty, we need to rethink our policies regarding urban development, energy production, and most importantly our agriculture and food systems, in order to avert an environmental crisis that many countries are already in the grip of.

—Shiney Varghese

April 07, 2008

The Emerging U.S. Water Crisis - Part One

I am amazed: since last summer, almost every day we see at least one news story on another water crisis in the U.S. The water crisis is no longer something that we know about as affecting developing countries or their poor in particular. It is right here in our own backyard. Today, in many parts of the U.S. we are nearing the limits of our water supplies. And that is getting our attention.

The writing has been on the wall for some time. The private sector has been showing much interest in water as a source of profit, and water privatization has been an issue in many parts of the country. The failure in public water systems has indeed been a contributing factor for this interest. In many cities, consumers have been organizing and opposing the privatization of water utilities, because they have been concerned about affordability or deterioration in the quality of service. Environmental organizations and
consumer activists have also been concerned about the socio-economic, health and environmental implications of ever increasing bottled water use.

But for most of us living in the U.S., water is something we take for granted, available when you turn your tap on–—to brush your teeth, to take a shower, to wash your car, to water your lawn, and if you have your own swimming pool then, to fill that as well.

So it was with alarm that many of us read the story of Orme, a small town tucked away in the mountains of southern Tennessee that has become a recent symbol of the drought in the southeast. Orme has had to literally ration its water use, by collecting water for a few hours every day–—an everyday experience in most developing countries, but unusual for the U.S.

This is an extreme experience from the southeast region that has been under a year long dry spell. In fact, the region’s dry spell resulted in the city of Atlanta setting severe water use restrictions and three states, Georgia, Florida and Alabama, going to court over a water allocation dispute (settled in favor of Florida and Alabama early this month).

Early this year we also heard that drought in the region could force nuclear reactor shutdowns. Nuclear reactors need billions of gallons of cooling water daily to operate, and in many of the lakes and rivers water levels are getting close to the limit set by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It is possible in the coming months that we may see water levels decrease below the intake pipes, or that shallow water could become warmer and unusable as a coolant. While this may not cause blackouts, this can result in increased costs for energy as utilities have to buy from other sources.

Water concerns are not restricted to the southeast region—similar issues have also been popping up in other parts of the United States. In the Midwest, concerns abound as to whether the newly emerging biofuel industry is putting undue pressure on the region’s groundwater resources. The issue came into focus for the first time in the late summer of 2006 in Granite Falls, MN where an ethanol plant in its first year of operation depleted the groundwater so much that it had to begin pumping water from the Minnesota River.

In early February, it was reported that there is a 50 percent chance Lake Mead (on the Arizona/Nevada border), will be dry by 2021 if climate change continues as expected and future water use is not limited. Along with Lake Powell in Utah, Lake Mead helps provide water for more than 25 million people, and is a key source of water in the southwestern U.S. On the west coast, where water is a precious resource, water disputes abound: between farmers who want water for agriculture, environmentalists who want to conserve water for ecosystems, and cities who want to meet ever-growing urban water needs.

Last summer, in a landmark decision, a federal judge ordered state and federal water project managers to reduce the amount of water pumped from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta to protect the threatened delta smelt from extinction. Along with excessive rains in other regions and increased incidence of hurricanes in the Gulf Coast, these changes are a constant reminder of an increasingly evident reality: climate change.

In fact, in early February, Nature reported that, “In the western US, where water is perhaps the most precious natural resource, anthropogenic global warming is responsible for more than half of the well-documented changes to the hydrological cycle from 1950 to 1999. . .Over the last half of the twentieth century, the region's mountains received less winter snow and more rain, with snow melting earlier, causing rivers to flow more strongly in the spring and more weakly in the summer.”

Unlike Katrina’s images that are as haunting as that of a severe sub Saharan drought, the images of the current North American drought are no more than a mild distraction for most Americans (though not for those who live in Orne). Yet there is no reason to be complacent. We are close to the limits of our water supplies. It is time for us to start thinking of this nation’s susceptibility to these changes and disruptions and how to minimize our vulnerability to them.

In part two, I'll look more at the U.S. water crisis and agriculture.

—Shiney Varghese

April 04, 2008

In Istanbul on World Water Day

Istanbul is a beautiful city. It straddles the continents of Asia and Europe, and lies on the banks of the strategic Bosphorus Strait that connects the Marmara and Dead Sea. For water activists, Istanbul is an especially important place because it will host the 5th World Water Forum (WWF) one year from now.

Many Turkish water justice activists have come together to organize a parallel alternative water forum next year. This alterative water forum will challenge the corporate and International Financial Institution (IFI)-led agenda of the WWF, and talk about alternatives that will help address the global water crisis. You can find background on the emerging water crisis, both in the U.S. and around the world, at our water web page.

As people around the world celebrated World Water Day on March 22nd, I had the privilege to be part of a delegation of international water justice advocates which held a preparatory meeting in Istanbul to plan for the alternative water forum.

The first event was a conference, "Water Under the Yoke of Capitalism,” organized by a network of 50 Turkish organizations in collaboration with 17 other groups from around the world. It was well attended by representatives of diverse sectors, including: water worker unions, consumer groups, academics and public health and environmental organizations.

The program was well organized, with high quality and in-depth presentations on a broad range of issues. It paid attention to the many ways in which water is central to our lives, our economy and how water mismanagement impacts health, agriculture, industry, mining and energy.

As far as the Turkish water situation goes, every presenter, irrespective of their professional background -- engineering, hydro-electric energy, health, mining, dams or agriculture -- stressed sustainability and criticized neo-liberalization. They were in agreement about the threats of privatization, the misuse of water resources, the damage caused by international finance and domestic policies that promote unsustainable development, and the need for alternatives.

Farm groups were also very active at the meeting. While irrigated agriculture accounts for 70 percent of world water use, it produces 40 percent of the world’s food crops. Rain-fed agriculture meets 60 percent of food production, but is under threat from climate change. The conference ended with a call from farmers' groups to include rural water concerns in the upcoming alternate water forum.

The conference was followed by a strategy meeting that issued the Istanbul Solidarity Statement on March 24, 2008. I'll continue to report throughout the year on plans for next year's World Water Forum in Istanbul.

—Shiney Varghese

March 14, 2008

Good Jobs, Green Jobs... for everyone!

IATPers Jim Harkness, Lindsay Dahl and I are all at the "Green Jobs, Good Jobs" conference in Pittsburgh today and it has been a very powerful and uplifting experience. Organized by the Blue-Green Alliance, which brings together the United Steelworkers and the Sierra Club, this is the first national conference to focus not only on the global warming and environmental challenges we face, but more importantly, on how we need to restructure our economy and create jobs to address these challenges.

Yesterday was a great start, with multiple speakers and panels on issues ranging from public policy and investment to the role of green chemistry and energy in rebuilding rural and urban economies. Carl Pope of the Sierra Club gave a stirring speech to help open the conference and place it in context, by asking the essential question: how do we ensure, as we move into a green jobs economy, that poor people, people of color and rural communities aren't left out? The response from Lou Schorsch, CEO of Flat Caron America and ArcelorMittal North America, the world's largest steel company, was emblematic of the problems we face: "I'm a business guy, so that's a hard question for me." 

Minnesota is the home of Dave Foster, the Executive Director of the Blue-Green Alliance, so it's not surprising that much of the work here has been highlighted. Minnesotan presenters included Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak, Minnesota State Senator Ellen Anderson, and Piper Jaffrey's Lois Quam yesterday, with Senator Amy Klobuchar scheduled to speak today. While we know things aren't perfect back home and we still face many challenges in moving toward green and good jobs, it's clear that Minnesota has lessons and approaches that other states and regions can learn from, so a little "Minnesota-pride" is deserved!

For me, however, it is the focus on jobs, people and justice that has me most excited. Marko Trbovich of the United Steel Workers, gave a rousing speech to end yesterday's program, where he spoke directly to the connections between climate change and international trade. Some of the key points include:
- Climate change is the most pervasive form of globalization.
- Climate change is inextricably linked to international trade.
- To really make the policy changes we need to address global warming, we need to reform our trade system.

These connections with people and justice were brought into sharp focus this morning by an incredibly emotional and powerful speech given by Van Jones, Director of "Green for All" in Oakland, CA. Van spoke of the victories our movement has already achieved, shown most starkly in the fact that "polluters" are trying to sound just like us now on climate issues. But he emphasized that as we move forward politically and as a movement from the margins to the center, we need to make sure that we use this opportunity to bring all folks forward -- that the green economy isn't just about reclaiming "stuff," but more importantly a chance to reclaim thrown away children and lives. As Van said, those communities pushed down by a pollution-based economy need to be lifted up by the green economy -- we have the chance and obligation to create a green wave that can lift all boats and has a place for everyone. 

To create this "green pathway out of poverty," Van pointed to the need for the right policies, politics and principles. We need to create a green workforce to meet our new labor needs, but one that is open and accessible to our marginalized community members. Van then talked about some of the programs in Oakland that have