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

Rural Communities

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

May 16, 2008

Growing Minnesota Biodiesel - Responsibly

Minnesota recently passed legislation to increase the biodiesel content of diesel fuel sold in the state from the current 2 percent to 20 percent by 2015. The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, together with Minnesota farm and environmental organizations, worked with legislators to make sure that the mandate, which is the highest in the nation, will not only support the biodiesel industry, but will also specifically benefit Minnesota’s economy and environment and help us move forward towards the next generation of biofuels.

While the merits of mandates are debatable, if they are going to be put in place, they must incorporate provisions to ensure that Minnesota's farmers, economy and environment are the beneficiaries - not just a few multinational processors.

In particular the legislation included:

• A first–in-the-country palm oil ban (and possibly first in the world - if you know of others, let us know). Virgin palm oil cannot be used to produce biodiesel to meet the mandate, which will help assure that Minnesota does not contribute to environmental destruction and rainforest clearing associated with new palm oil production - a practice outlined in our recent report Biofuels and Global Biodiversity.
• Focus on Minnesota and Midwest production. The increasing levels of biodiesel content can only go into effect if Minnesota is producing at least 50 percent of mandated production level in-state from feedstocks produced in the US and Canada, assuring that this market share will benefit Minnesota farmers and biodiesel producers.
• Opening the door for the next generation. Five percent of the mandate needs to be met with biodiesel produced from non-traditional feedstocks (waste oil, algae, etc.), which will help diversify biodiesel production and assist with a shift away from food and feed crops such as soybeans.
• Assessing the costs and benefits. Reports to the legislature are required annually on price and supply of biodiesel, as well as the impacts of the mandate on the Minnesota biodiesel industry and the use of Minnesota crops and materials used for biodiesel production.

Here is the full text of the bill:

—Jim Kleinschmit

April 19, 2008

Mining Highlighted at International Civil Society Forum at UNCTAD XII

IATP's Alexandra Spieldoch and Anne Laure Constantin are in Accra, Ghana for the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) XII meeting through April 24. They will be blogging periodically on events in Accra.

Yao Graham and his colleagues at Third World Network Africa are working hard to strengthen democracy in Africa. They believe greater democracy will help put the continent on the road to development.

In his opening speech to the international Civil Society Forum in Accra this week, Yao pointed to the many countries where democracy is at risk in Africa (Cameroon, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Ethiopia, Egypt, Darfur…), but he also emphasized that, generally, the political space has opened up. Building stronger civil society movements in West Africa will ultimately strengthen the democratic processes nationally and regionally.

Civil society in West Africa is particularly concerned with the impacts of mining on rural communities. At a time when high commodity prices are portrayed internationally as good news for those who export mineral products, the reality in the region is that mining is not benefiting people: on the contrary, it is threatening livelihoods, those of workers in the sector, but also those of farmers because of the competition for land, water pollution and deforestation. While African countries can claim high growth rates, “growth without redistribution, without development and equity, is meaningless,” said Graham. Corporate control over natural resources in Africa was strongly denounced and participants recommended that people's movements should be strengthened in order to hold governments accountable. Otherwise, they fear that the new commodities boom will only lead to “a new scramble for Africa."

—Anne-Laure Constantin

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 offered training to the undereducated and formerly incarcerated, and how these opportunities -- including the chance to join a union -- are helping raise people out of poverty and bring them in from the margins. The Green Jobs Act of 2007, a part of the Energy and Security Act, can help us get there, through training 30,000 people a year in skills needed for our new economy.

Van also spoke to the need for a new politics, whereby we create a movement and the political will to truly address the problems we face - a "Green New Deal" that can provide the kind of governance we need at this critical time. And finally, we need the right principles, which means sticking up for the little people and not leaving anyone behind. As Van so eloquently stated, evoking the brutal abandonment of the poor in New Orleans after Katrina, and in the process the whole principle of climate justice: "We reject the politics of sink-or-swim in the time of floods." 

For me, Van and his work reflects the real challenges we face as we try to build this new green economy -- simply replacing an inequitable fossil fuel economy with a biobased or renewable economy based on the same power and political structures won't get us where we need to go. For the green economy to truly succeed, it is clear that it needs to start and end with justice for all. That means continuing to make sure that people of all classes and races are engaged in this work, and that we build the bridges and coalitions with farmers, inner city residents, indigenous communities, and others to make sure that the solutions put forward to our global warming and environmental crises are crafted to ensure that we move from hurting poor people and the planet to helping them both.

—Jim Kleinschmit

February 27, 2008

The Travesty of Child Labor

Mark Muller’s personal account of his work with a farmer cooperative in Honduras that uses child labor points to the complexities of this issue. As Mark suggests, there are many factors contributing to child labor, some domestic, some related to free trade. These include, but are not limited to extreme poverty, reduction in public spending in rural sectors, gender discrimination and lack of political power within communities.

But, aside from the causes, child labor is a travesty and we must all be clear on this even as we seek to address the complexities before us. IATP has always opposed child labor - whether it is in Honduras, or historically among U.S. farmworkers and elsewhere.

Certainly, the recognition of international labor standards are part of the solution. But they are only the beginning, not the end to what needs to be done to promote social well-being, fair prices for farmers and fair wages for workers, and an end to hunger and extreme poverty. Labor standards do not address the fact that current trade and investment policies are purposefully designed to exploit cheap labor and hurt producers as a means to supply cheap goods to the global market. Labor standards do not address how small countries like Honduras are destabilized, in terms of trying to meet domestic development needs and compete in the global market. Cheap labor is considered the comparative advantage. No one is excluded in this post-colonial model of slave production. Not children, not old people, and not pregnant women sweating in the fields.

We need to move beyond the judgement and fairly simplistic notions from the North about how to address social alienation and injustice. It is in our commitment to one another and to our environment that we embrace comprehensive solutions, including advocating for international treaties that support basic human rights over the market. This includes garnering international support for the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UN Declaration on Human Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women – to name a few.

I highly recommend materials posted on the web site for the International Labor Rights Forum. For many years, this organization has been doing participatory research and labor rights campaigns to lift up the rights of women and children in all parts of the world. They have looked at Honduras and taken positions on CAFTA. They are looking at abuse on the plantations and working with people on the ground. They and others have done some incredible work to highlight the complexities and to build the voices of those who are so marginalized.

The cover story on the latest issue of Forbes magazine outlines the scope of the problem: there are 218 million child laborers around the world and seven out of 10 are in agriculture. The article lists some of the challenges that communities, labor groups and corporations are facing in parts of the world where child labor is common.

IATP’s Sophia Murphy also recommends a recent report by the International Labor Organization on how to end child labor.

IATP has always embraced complexity in its broader analysis of food and farming. We can't forget the voices of children in identifying the problems as well as the solutions.

—Alexandra Spieldoch

February 04, 2008

Farmer Agreement Offers Alternative to NAFTA’s Failures

On January 1, 2008, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into full effect after a 15-year phase-in for more sensitive agricultural products like sugar, white corn, beans and dairy. This means the last remaining tariffs are no longer legally binding, including those on sugar imported from Mexico to the U.S., and vice versa. Additionally, the Mexican government will no longer block imported high fructose corn syrup from the U.S., which competes directly with sugar in the Mexican sweetener markets.

The expected fallout threatens to hurt sugar farmers on both sides of the border. This threat is so dire, that it has provided an impetus for Mexican and American sugar growers to reach an historic agreement to modify the final implementation of NAFTA. 

First, let’s look at the chaos NAFTA is expected to bring to sugar markets in the U.S. and Mexico.

An expected import surge of U.S. corn syrup will likely displace Mexican sugar from the Mexican sweetener market. Mexican sugar growers also face the prospect of increased U.S sugar imports, because the current U.S. cost of production for sugar is less than in Mexico. Moreover, increased imports from other countries have created a substantial U.S. surplus of sugar that could be dumped into Mexico.

In the U.S., sugar displaced from the Mexican market by corn syrup could be exported to the U.S. This could overwhelm the delicately balanced U.S. inventory management system, already under siege by increased imports from World Trade Organization (WTO) and Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) obligations. 

All these threats taken together would likely depress sugar prices below the cost of production on both sides of the border, resulting in a shutdown of most of the North American sugar industry. 

However, there is more at stake here than the fate of an agricultural commodity. Sugar is Mexico’s largest remaining agricultural industry. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Foreign Agricultural Service, there are an estimated 158,000 sugar farms in Mexico that average 10 acres in size. These farms supply 58 mills located in 15 of the country’s poorest 35 states. The Mexican sugar industry directly employs more than 300,000 workers, including cane cutters, seasonal field workers, and factory workers; and indirectly supports another 2.2 million jobs. 

The NAFTA-mandated destruction of the Mexican sugar industry would likely cause a new wave of immigrants to try to find work in the United States. This new migration would rival the well documented surge of Mexican migration caused by U.S. export dumping of yellow corn into Mexico facilitated by NAFTA over the last decade.

Thus far, Mexican sugar farmers have been spared the devastating effects of dumped imports because the Mexican government has refused for 15 years to deregulate their sweetener market.  Just as importantly, U.S. sugar growers have had enough political clout to defend their own sugar program that—unlike other U.S. farm programs—manages inventories, prevents overproduction and export dumping, and guarantees farmers a fair price at no cost to U.S. taxpayers.   

For decades, high fructose corn syrup has competed with sugar in an increasingly integrated sweetener market. In fact, the rules for this sweetener war under NAFTA have been continually in dispute literally since the signing of the agreement in 1994. As NAFTA forced Mexico to deregulate its sweetener market, cheaper U.S. corn syrup began taking market share away from Mexican sugar growers, especially in the soft drink market. Mexico tried to protect its sugar growers: first with anti-dumping measures; and then with a tax on corn syrup. However, the U.S. government, on behalf of the Corn Refiners Association (including Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland), dutifully challenged Mexico’s actions before international trade tribunals under both NAFTA and the WTO, and won.

Significantly, the agreement reached by U.S. and Mexican sugar growers sets the stage for managing the sweetener market between the two countries in a way that could benefit farmers in both countries. Specifically, the deal would modify the implementation of full NAFTA deregulation of Mexican and U.S. sweetener markets by:

·         Building on a provision currently included in the pending Farm Bill that would allow the use of some sugar to produce ethanol as a means to manage excess supplies.

·         Managing sugar supplies used for ethanol production separately from sugar used for human consumption; a prudent step given the growing controversy over fuel versus fuel.   

·         Limiting import surges of Mexican sugar exports to the U.S. caused by displacement of Mexican sugar from the anticipated import surges of high fructose corn syrup being dumped by multinational agribusinesses into Mexico.

·         Managing the two countries’ sugar re-export programs to provide a smoother and more predictable transition to a more integrated North American sweetener market. 

·         Providing Mexican and U.S. sugar growers with preferential market access to North American sugar markets—both for human and ethanol consumption—while still fulfilling the two countries’ existing WTO and other international trade commitments.

·         Establishing a Joint Mexico-United States Sugar Commission to resolve future disputes, rather than leaving them up to secret NAFTA tribunals.

The agreement has been circulated among appropriate government officials in both countries, and various options have been suggested for moving the agreement forward.

The mutual threat of lost markets and livelihoods has compelled Mexican and U.S. sugar farmers to work out an agreement that will give both sides a fighting chance to survive. The deal could help resolve the endless trade disputes and uncertainty that have wreaked havoc in the sweetener market since NAFTA was signed. It could curtail the otherwise inevitable increase in cross-border dumping of sweeteners that threatens to irrevocably damage the North American sugar industry, which is so important to both the Mexican and the U.S. economies. Finally, it could help us avoid another displacement of Mexican agricultural workers who will be forced to migrate north if we allow NAFTA to be implemented unencumbered.

For more information on the connections between agriculture, trade and immigration, go to Trade Observatory.

—R. Dennis Olson

January 02, 2008

"The market will get brutal next year"

News late last year of the merger of the third (VeraSun) and fourth (US Bioenergy) largest U.S. ethanol producers is not surprising, but it should serve as a warning to farmer and community-owned facilities.

Matt McKinney, of the Star Tribune, quotes an analyst from Wells Fargo Securities as stating, "The market will get brutal next year. The ones I worry about are the one- and two-facility guys. They're just, in my humble view, going to get crushed."

An article by DTN's Todd Neeley reports that the big ethanol players, like Archer Daniels Midland, are expected to take advantage of the downturn in the ethanol market to buy up smaller players. Neeley quotes Purdue agriculture economist Christopher Hurt as saying, "ADM has already made it known that they are in the market for more ethanol capacity at a reasonable price. . .Traditionally ADM has been a buyer of distressed assets and I would guess that would be the case for ethanol plants as well."

Neeley also quotes ethanol analyst James Eiler as stating that ADM and Poet "have publicly stated that they will consider expanding their asset base through acquisition, versus their practice to date of building their own proprietary plants."

The rapid consolidation in the ethanol sector is familiar to those who have followed agriculture markets over the years. University of Missouri economists Mary Hendrickson and William Heffernan have documented consolidation in other agriculture sectors over the last several decades. In their analysis earlier this year, ethanol was the only sector where consolidation had actually declined over the last 20 years. Now that is changing as corn prices rise and the margins for ethanol production narrow.

Why does it matter who owns the ethanol industry? As IATP's Jim Kleinschmit has written, "ownership of the refineries by local farmers and community members is seen as the key aspect to sustainable rural development. Local ownership assures that the facility is based to some extent on local resources and needs, and that much of the money generated remains in the local economy."

A study last year by the National Corn Growers Association found a much greater economic benefit for rural communities and rural households when ethanol plants are locally-owned.

Both the Farm Bill and Energy Bill have the opportunity to set policies that encourage farmer and community ownership of biofuel plants in the U.S., following the lead set in Minnesota which offered incentives and loans for farmer-owned plants.

Other sectors of the agricultural economy have become so consolidated that farmers are simply over-matched in the marketplace. They are price-takers, forced to accept whatever is offered from a few companies for what they produce, often at below their cost of production. Over the last several decades, a handful of big companies have extracted both the natural resources and profits out of many rural communities. As the biofuel sector shakes out, we should take care not to repeat the same mistakes and prioritize local ownership.

—Ben Lilliston

November 07, 2007

Searching for clarity on biofuels

IATP finds itself in an interesting place in the recent tidal wave of interest around biofuels. Our initial interest came from our work with local farmers and rural communities in Minnesota and surrounding states. These farmers and their communities were looking for a way to add value to their crops when prices were at record lows. The debate was far from today's discussion of food scarcity. In those days, maybe five to seven years ago, the focus was all on how to control apparent over-production, which was depressing prices and generating unsustainably large income support payments from the craziness that is federal U.S. agricultural policy. Exports had decidedly failed to expand in the wake of the Uruguay Round Agreements, despite the apparently authoritative promises of corporate traders and government officials alike.

Many U.S. farmers were already trade-sceptics, understanding that their problem was they sold something worth relatively little (corn or soy or wheat) to firms that turned it into something relatively valuable (meat or bread or Frosted Flakes). Farmers could also see that the reason the raw materials were not worth much was that very few firms were in charge of this process of adding value to grain, giving those firms the market power to keep prices low, even when global supply was not epecially high.

Then came biofuels, and a whole new, domestic market. Here was a chance to recapture some of that precious market power, and to make a contribution to reducing greenhouse gases at the same time.

Five years on, the scene is much more complicated. That surplus production disappeared in a few bad harvests, dried up by drought in the major grain-growing regions of the world (did someone say, climate change?). Prices for agricultural commodities have started to climb, while a number of people are pointing to the obvious (if simplistic) moral dilemma of using scarce land, water and soil for fuel rather than for food, especially in a country whose energy use is wholly unsustainable and largely responsible for climate change that is going to hurt some of the world's poorest (and least energy wasteful) countries. (Read here for IATP's take on aspects of that question.) Everyone wants a piece of the money they see attached to this latest craze and not enough people are honest about either the potential or the risks involved.

Here are a few thoughts to get us started: 1. biofuels have many feedstocks and can be made in more than one way. What is true for corn grown in Minnesota and processed by a farmer-owned ethanol plant will not necessarily hold for palm oil grown in Malaysia and processed in Germany, or even for soybeans grown in Minnesota to make bio-diesel for local use. 2. Different countries and regions have different allocations of arable land and water: they can and should consider the potential to use that land to generate energy on its merits. It may make sense to use agricultural crops for energy in one province or region and not in another within the same country. 3. We need to distinguish public investment from subsidies. Where can the state make a contribution to overcome the myriad distortions that plague energy and agricultural markets, to protect an important new opportunity? Where are programs designed simply to pay farmers, or processors, to continue with the bad old unsustainable agriculture? There is a difference - we need to develop and agree on the standards by which we will distinguish good public expenditure from bad.

How about starting with commodities that are local, fairly priced and sustainably grown? And all in the context of an energy policy that is about reducing use--in the case of the U.S., reducing energy use dramatically. It sounds easy but it isn't. We have to move away from the increasingly shrill nature of the debate now in progress and back to grounding the discussion in something more tangible. Not biofuels: Yes or No? But Biofuels: What kind? Where grown? How used? For What? Who benefits? Those are the questions IATP is asking -- see here and here for short analyses of very different aspects of biofuels production.

It would be a pity for the biggest new market in a generation to evaporate in bad policy choices and greed. Just as it would be criminal to allow energy-hungry rich countries to continue their bid to commandeer the land of the developing world. There is more than one good way out of the seeming impasse - let's explore some options.

—Sophia Murphy

October 25, 2007

After "Lessons from NAFTA"

Day two of our "Lessons from NAFTA" conference hit hard on one of the most powerful themes of the meeting - the role of trade in forced migration. The day started with a keynote from "Children of NAFTA" author David Bacon, who outlined how NAFTA had displaced jobs and people in Mexico, driving them into the U.S. The day continued with a series of panels on different aspects of immigration and trade, each telling the story of how the forced migration of people desperate for jobs is one of the often ignored downsides of free trade agreements.

In our Farm Bill series, IATP outlined how NAFTA combined with the 96 U.S. Farm Bill to increase forced migration into the U.S. But it's clear this link between migration and free trade agreements is not getting through to either the mainstream media or political candidates. Discussions on immigration consistently ignore the trade context and prevent us from finding workable solutions. As Congress debates a new round of bilateral free trade agreements for Peru, Panama, Columbia and South Korea, an increase in forced migration should be part of the discussion.

—Ben Lilliston

September 03, 2007

After the Flood

A few weeks ago, heavy rains flooded a stretch of land along the Minnesota and Wisconsin border that is home to hundreds of organic farmers. Reports have been devastating - with many individual farms reporting hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages.

Aarick Beher and Gretta Wing Miller have made a powerful short video capturing the challenges facing these farmers - both from the weather and the marketplace. The video raises some of the unique challenges that make organic farmers particularly vulnerable to weather-related disasters, including the issue of flood insurance. Many organic farmers can't afford flood insurance. Those that do usually have conventional flood insurance - meaning that they are compensated according to prices for conventional crops, not organic crops which are usually much higher. Organic expert Jim Riddle explains some of these issues in an article published in Agrinews.

Last year, IATP and the Wedge Coop started the Sow the Seeds Fund to help support local food systems. Because so many farmers in this region supplied food coops and grocery stores in Minnesota and Wisconsin, in the short-term the Fund will focus its resources on helping these farmers get back on their feet. Food coops in both states have already collected tens of thousands of dollars in contributions - a real testiment to how committed consumers in both states are to local farmers. But as Beher and Millers' video shows, much more will be needed.

Please consider taking a minute and contributing to the Sow the Seeds Fund to support sustainable and organic farmers in the Midwest.

—Ben Lilliston