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

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.



RSS feeds

 Subscribe in a reader

« May 2009 | Main | July 2009 »

June 2009

June 30, 2009

The Middle of the Local Food Chain

One of the challenges of transitioning toward a more locally based food system in the United States is that our current infrastructure disagrees with the idea. During the last 50 years, U.S. farm policy has told farmers to "get big or get out." We've encouraged farmers to grow single crops for export, animal feed or as ingredients in processed foods. Now, even though we're witnessing the problems with this industrial system in the form of food contamination outbreaks, the loss of family farmers, and damage to the environment and public health, it's hard to quickly change course.

We know change is happening on the supply side of the food system. Consumers are demanding more locally grown foods. Farmers markets are continuing to grow in popularity. But the local food market is still a small percentage of the larger food marketplace. Currently, it's difficult for mid-sized farmers to find buyers large enough to guarantee a local food market. And many larger food purchasers are having trouble finding the supply of locally produced food that they need. How do we scale up?

Compass Group is one of the largest food service companies in the U.S. They supply food to universities, restaurants, hospitals and companies around the country. Last week, Compass announced a new effort called "Ag in the Middle." The idea is to expand the company's local food purchasing with a goal to develop partnerships with 2,013 farmers by 2013. IATP is partnering with Compass on the project.

It's time to start smoothing out those bumps in the middle of the local food chain.

Ben Lilliston

June 29, 2009

The Labors of Chickens

Devin Foote is a 24-year-old beginning farmer at Common Ground Farm in Beacon, New York. Throughout the growing season, Devin will be chronicling his experiences as a young farmer growing for a local food system.

June 12, 2009

72 Labors

First, seventy-two labors brought us this food, we should know how it
comes to us.
Second, as we receive this offering, we should consider whether our virtue      
and practice deserve it.
Third, as we desire the natural order of mind to be free from clinging, we
must be free from greed.
Fourth, to support our life we take this food.
Fifth, to attain our way we take this food.
First, this food is for the three treasures.
Second, it is for our teachers, parents, nation, and all sentient beings.
Third, it is for all beings in the six worlds.
Thus we eat this food with everyone
We eat to stop all evil
To practice good
To save all sentient beings
And to accomplish our Buddha Way

- Meal Gatha, sacred chant performed before meals at a local Buddhist Monestary

The above words were uttered by our apprentice Heidi Kunz prior to our meal this evening. Forty minutes prior she had been pacing through the woods of a forested backyard, questioning her own choices about why she decided to become a vegetarian 17 years ago – “I feel like I have to decide right now if I want to keep eating meat,” she murmured in agonized mental confusion, tears streaming down her cheek.

Moments later she placed a sharpened knife at the jugular of a chicken.

We all know too well the modern minds’ seductive use of disassociation – not only have food companies and televised commercials aided in such separatist thought – but particularly pertaining to meat. Many attest – just give me the store-bought Cornish Cross, boneless chicken breast. We may think otherwise, but recent CDC studies show chicken to be the number one source of food borne illness outbreaks. So those eight-week old, four to five pound Cornish Crosses that topple over because they've been bred to grow so rapidly don't necessarily make the most appetizing (or humane) source of food.

The Cornish Cross, or Rock Cornish, is a hybrid variety of chicken, produced from a cross between the Cornish and Plymouth Rock strains. It has become a favorite because it lacks the typical "hair" seen in other breeds which often need singeing post plucking. It is a poor forager and would therefore be at a loss in knowing how to navigate our clover patches. 

Chicken coop So, in opposition to the antibiotic-injected, high protein diet, crammed indoor space of factory farms; our birds - a diverse group of eight different varieties - have been hanging out in their homemade mobile chicken coop. In the quiet months of March, we retrofitted the 1950s manure spreader that a local had been rotting in his backyard. We frequented the local lumberyard and piece-by-piece put together a homemade chicken tractor (see right).

About once every three days, the chickens get rotated through a section of fallowed clover cover crop. We supplement their local, organic feed from Lightning Tree Farm ($22/bag). With a rich supply of kitchen scraps and the clover abounding from our soil, our birds have been eating well since their arrival in February. After a few run-ins with mother nature's other species, we have 18 laying hens - all of which will begin laying in the coming weeks. As a side business we sell fresh eggs to those who ask - $5/dozen.

More than anything, these birds exist on our farm as a source of education. The mobile coop is part of the knowledge our apprentices gain from learning about about holistic farm management. And although we may be young at this, we aspire to provide a sound example of closed-loop farming systems, minimizing outside inputs of fertilizer.

Just like the disassociation from what appears on our plates at supper - we have become removed from understanding how humans can manage other animals in a humane and honorable way. Killing a chicken humanely and in the presence of others, for some, is a step in the direction towards honoring ones food supply. After participating in the process and asking, "why did you do it?" Heidi answered, "to justify my eating of meat - I can now understand why some don't do it."     

Devin Foote

June 26, 2009

The consequences of business as usual

IATP's Steve Suppan is blogging from the U.N. Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis in New York.

At a certain point, the big numbers numb you. And at the U.N. summit on the financial crisis and development, the numbers are all big. The estimated total net capital loss from developing countries in the past year ($1 trillion according to the World Bank or $2 trillion according to the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development); the job loss projected by the International Labor organization (40-50 million this year; perhaps 100 million by 2010); the amount of money pledged by the G-20 countries to the International Monetary Fund ($750 billion) for loans to stabilize government finances. And this is to say nothing of the huge numbers that register social devastation to education, health, social welfare and environmental programs, particularly those in developing countries.
But what focuses the mind despite the blizzard of numbers are the consequences of business as usual. In the Civil Society Forum Statement to the conference, there is a firm commitment not to allow intergovernmental institutions and governments to return to business as usual. Rather than allow all global economic planning and governance to be handed down by a few governments, the IMF, the World Bank and the WTO Financial Services Agreement, the civil society organizations at the U.N. summit have proposed a governance role for the United Nations. The Commission of Experts advising the President of the General Assembly have likewise proposed ways to prevent a repeat of the financial deregulation that has triggered the economic crisis and humanitarian crisis we will live in globally for the next few years. In the brutal U.N. negotiating process, in which the G-20 opposed any substantive U.N. economic governance role, little has survived from these proposals except the possibility of discussing them further in a U.N. General Assembly Working Group. According to the Outcome Document to be presented today for formal approval by government delegates, a panel of experts is to advise the General Assembly on next steps. 
Between now and mid-September when the General Assembly meets again, there will be hard negotiating about the mandate of the Working Group and whether civil society organizations may advise the panel of experts. This outcome is, of course, a very small victory, but not an insignificant one. Furthermore, IATP believes that within the terms of the outcome document there lies the possibility for the General Assembly to authorize the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development to take a much more active role in proposing ways to prevent the excessive speculation in commodity markets that have devastated trade revenues in commodity export-dependent developing countries. Today, IATP will discuss proposals to reform commodity futures markets with government delegates in a side event organized by the government of Tanzania.

When the General Assembly meets in September, the G-20 will also be meeting in Pittsburgh, Pa.,, to plan a different economic future than what we hope will be discussed in the Working Group. There will likely be more civil society organizations in Pittsburgh protesting the Wall Street bailouts than there will be in the fight for a U.N. Working Group on global economic governance. But that fight could well be more important than naming and shaming the beneficiaries of financial deregulation and their government allies.

Ben Lilliston

June 25, 2009

A Glimmer at UN on Global Financial Crisis

IATP's Steve Suppan is blogging from the U.N. Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis in New York.

Yesterday, at the opening plenary, government delegates agreed to adopt an outcome document that is the result of more than four months of intense and sometime bitter negotiations. According to the United Nations, another 100 million persons could lose their jobs by 2010, as a result of an economic crisis triggered by the deregulation of the U.S. financial services industry. Most of these jobs will be lost in countries without unemployment insurance, creating conditions for political instability in dozens of developing countries. This situation led the U.S. Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair to tell the U.S. Senate committee on intelligence in February that the economic crisis had replaced terrorism as the number one U.S. national security threat.

IATP's President Jim Harkness participated in the initial meeting in October 2008 that launched the preparation of the negotiations process. IATP provided input on regulating commodity price volatility to the Commission of Experts advising the President of the General Assembly on issues to be addressed in the outcome document. IATP also contributed to a U.N. Conference on Trade and Development symposium that was part of the high-level conference (HLC) preparations.

Most of the ideas of the Commission of Experts to provide short-term economic stimulus to developing countries and to enhance the U.N.'s role in global economic governance were cut in the long and sometimes brutal negotiations. The United States and the European Union wish to keep economic governance in the hands of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund, where they have effective veto power over all decisions. The U.S. and EU proposed that the outcome document should only register the impact of the financial crisis on developing countries and welcome the work of the G-20 in proposing policies and promising financial resources for the IMF. The U.S.and EU wanted no commitments to consider the creation of new governance instruments and funding to complement the IMF and World Bank, both of which failed to warn member countries of the dangers of financial industry deregulation and liberalization through the World Trade Organization and free trade agreements.

However, the outcome document provides for the creation of a working group of the General Assembly, advised by a panel of experts "to follow up on issues contained in this outcome document." This diplomatic achievement may seem like a weak solution to the economic crisis that has spread from Wall Street around the world. But many, including the mainstream media, dismissed even the possibility that the United Nations could agree on any terms of a document to establish a new framework for economic governance and to gather resources that would not be provided as loans by the IMF or the World Bank. The outcome document establishes that possibility.

At the first HLC multi-stakeholder dialogue today, IATP was among five non-governmental organizations selected to comment on the HLC outcome document and the opportunities it presented to involve U.N. agencies and civil society organizations in longer term financial institution reform and to implement short-term stimulus packages to prevent an economic breakdown in developing countries. So many government delegates wished to speak that IATP did not have a chance to do so. But Roberto Bissio of Social Watch, a long-time IATP ally, welcomed the outcome document and pointed to opportunities it presented for investing to protect the world's most vulnerable populations. Beverly Kneen of Jubilee South emphasized the need to direct non-debt generating money to developing countries by closing tax evasion loopholes, illegal capital flight, and repudiating illegally contracted debt, rather than allowing an IMF and World Bank-controlled debtors' crisis.

There is much to  be done at the conference before the General Assembly formally adopts the outcome document on June 26. IATP will continue to work with groups from around the world to ensure that the challenge of the financial crisis to development, including rural development and food security undermined by deregulated commodity markets speculation, will be met.

Ben Lilliston

June 24, 2009

Separating the wheat from the chaff

Remember when the cost of a loaf of bread rose rapidly last year due to skyrocketing wheat prices? A new Senate report says excess speculation by financial investors with no connection to actual wheat markets drove up prices for profit. These speculators were aided by lax enforcement from government regulators. The findings by Senate investigators are consistent with what we found in our report last year on the role of commodity speculation in the global food crisis.

Commodity futures markets have traditionally brought together buyers and sellers in a market, like the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT), to bid, offer and finally settle on a price for the delivery of a certain quantity of a commodity (say, wheat) at an agreed time and place. The contract enables commodity sellers, such as grain elevator operators, to avoid sudden price drops and commodity users or traders to avoid sudden price increases, e.g., due to tight supplies, crops failures or logistical bottlenecks. Both buyers and sellers use futures contracts to “hedge” their price risk.

The report, by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, focused on the disruptive role of commodity index traders who have no connection to the real-world wheat market. Instead, these speculators were interested in buying low, driving up prices, and selling high for a spectacular profit. The Senate report found that commodity index traders increased their holdings from 30,000 wheat contracts in 2004 to 220,000 contracts in 2008. In each year since 2006, these commodity index traders held between 35-50 percent of wheat futures contracts.

What was the effect of all this new outside money entering the wheat market? The gap between prices on the CBOT and actual cash prices paid at grain elevators grew from about 13 cents per bushel in 2005 to $1.53 in 2008a ten-fold increase. In other words, what was happening on the CBOT had little connection with actual supply and demand.

The Commodity Futures Trade Commission (CFTC) is supposed to prevent excess speculation by restricting traders to no more than 6,500 wheat contracts at a time. But the Senate report found that the CFTC allowed some commodity index traders to hold up to 10,000, 26,000 and even 53,000 contracts at a time.

Let's hope the Senate report spurs action. It makes a number of strong recommendations for reform, including limiting commodity index traders to 6,500 contracts (and potentially decreasing the number to 5,000). House Agriculture Committee Chair Collin Peterson has already introduced legislation to toughen regulations on commodity markets.

The United Nations is holding a summit on the global financial crisis this week in New York. IATP's Steve Suppan is attending and will address attendees today to call for international regulation of commodity exchanges. The chaos caused by big commodity index funds on the Chicago exchange reverberated around the world with higher food and energy prices. Tougher regulations in the U.S. will help global markets, but to ensure that speculators don't simply jump to commodity markets in London or elsewhere with weaker controls, a global approach is needed.

Ben Lilliston

June 22, 2009

Better Biodiesel

Making_biodiesel_2008 Earlier this week I had the good fortune of visiting the Organic Valley cooperative in La Farge, Wisc., a tiny town nestled into that state's ridiculously gorgeous Kickapoo Valley. There's a lot to like about Organic Valley: their co-op model has made organic dairy production and organic farming a viable path for more than a thousand farmers, they prioritize sustainability in all that they do, and, well, their chocolate milk just rocks. 

But I wasn't there for the milk, I was there to check out their innovative on-farm biodiesel program. Organic Valley biodiesel guru Zach Biermann, along with Jake Wedeberg, have designed a mobile biodiesel press--a trailer that holds everything they need to make biodiesel from oil seeds (or waste grease). They can move the trailer from farm to farm, so farmers who want to grow their own oil seeds (Zach and Jake have been experimenting with camelina and sunflower seeds) can process their own fuel on-farm.

Earlier this year, Organic Valley teamed up with the Sustainable Biodiesel Alliance (of which IATP is on the board of directors) to field test that organization's Baseline Practices for Sustainability, a set of guidelines to ensure sustainable biodiesel.

You can see the biodiesel trailer in action next month (and learn a lot more about sustainability and farming) at the Kickapoo Country Fair, July 25-26. IATP will be hosting a workshop on sustainable biodiesel. Join us! I’ll be there with chocolate milk in hand.

Julia Olmstead

June 19, 2009

China's new animal welfare law: Factory farms not on the menu….

A recent article in the Guardian newspaper reports that China will enact its first animal welfare law soon. The law appears to be a backlash against the widespread practice of local governments slaughtering dogs en masse in response to outbreaks of rabies, which is widespread in China.

“In the past month alone, authorities in Hanzhong, Shaanxi province, rounded up and killed 22,000 dogs after eight people died of rabies. Pet lovers were also up in arms after authorities in Heihe, Heilongjiang province, announced a cull of every dog in the town after an outbreak.”

The law is being drafted by legal experts in the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, in consultation with groups such as Britain’s Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the International Fund for Animal Welfare.

I find the new law noteworthy for two reasons.

First, for what is left out of the law, which draws a bright line between pets and other animals. The vast majority of domesticated animals in China pull carts and plows, provide wool or get eaten, and there is still no official consideration of how they should be treated. That last category is of special interest, since its numbers have exploded in recent years. Per capita annual meat consumption in China went from 25 kilograms in 1995 to 53 kg in 2008 (This is still only about half of what Americans eat). As demand has grown, the structure of meat production in China has also changed. The happy barnyard pigs and chickens feeding on table scraps are increasingly being replaced by factory-farmed animals, as documented in this report from Brighter Green. Drawing on Chinese and Western sources, the report describes a rapid increase in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) in China and the attendant problems, which range from systematic mistreatment of animals to massive increases in pollution from releases of untreated manure into waterways. Is respect for basic farm animal welfare too much to ask of a developing country? Perhaps. Yet, looking at the wide range of social and environmental costs associated with CAFOs documented in the report, I can’t help but think that both animals and people would be better off with a different system.

Despite the fact that farm animal welfare is not yet on the menu, the development of this law certainly shows how far China has come from totalitarian dictatorship, where in 1958 Mao was able to mobilize the entire country to kill sparrows because he thought they competed with humans for food. The kooky man vs. nature ethos is gone, for starters. (The sparrow-killing campaign backfired, of course. Sparrows eat insects, and with bird numbers successfully reduced the locust population exploded, wiping out harvests in the early 1960s.)

Furthermore, the ad hoc and localized nature of the current rabies campaigns is an outcome of the decentralization of governing authority in China during the 1990s, which has hobbled efforts to get coordinated public health responses in the country to any threat short of avian flu. (Local governments hid their SARS data for weeks as that epidemic spread.) And finally, we see in this new legislation the political clout of the new urban middle class. Dogs have been tolerated rather than doted on for most of Chinese history. When I spent time in Chinese villages in the 1980s and 1990s, dogs were regarded by most folks as kickable, garbage-eating burglar alarms. The return of widespread pet dog ownership didn’t really hit its stride until the late 90s, when dogs of all shapes and sizes became a must-own for wealthy city dwellers.

This law--which has no conceivable link to the economic or political agenda of the Chinese Communist Party--is evidence that the economic power of China’s yuppies is increasingly translating into political power. 

Jim Harkness

A Summer in Rural China

Caroline Merrifield is blogging from China about her experiences working on a traditional farm in rural China.

My name is Caroline Merrifield. I'm a rising senior at Harvard concentrating in Social Studies. I'm writing from a small organic CSA on the outskirts of Beijing called "Little Donkey Farm." It was set up on experimental land owned by Renmin University in Beijing. I've spent the past couple of days weeding cabbage and staking cucumbers, preparing, eating, and cleaning up after meals with all the farm interns and managers, and trying de-jet-lag my Chinese vocabulary.

I'm here as part of an exchange of sorts. Last summer, the graduate student who is overseeing Little Donkey Farm, a woman named Shi Yan, came to Minnesota under the auspices of IATP to work on Earthrise Farm, a small organic CSA. I was an IATP intern at the time, and I helped to translate some of her blog entries for the IATP Web site. Now it's my turn to learn about Chinese sustainable and traditional agriculture by working and living on Chinese farms. 

I'll be spending a week here at Little Donkey and then I'm off to Hebei Province. I'll be staying with a traditional farm family in a village where students from Renmin University have started an experimental organic farm. I'll add pictures when the internet here is a bit faster. So far, life at Little Donkey has been incredibly interesting - but as it's my turn to clean up, I should sign off for now.

Account Deleted

June 18, 2009

The AMA Targets Healthy Food

Few things are as fundamental to good health as healthy food, grown well. And yet the reality of our times is that the easiest, most available, most "affordable" food is typically the least healthful. I'm talking about packaged and heavily processed foods high in calories, additives and saturated fats and low in nutritional value.

Well, the American Medical Association has seized leadership in starting to build a healthier food system by passing new policy this week at its annual meeting, pledging that the organization will support health care systems that model healthy, ecologically sustainable food systems. And the AMA commits itself to support a 2012 Farm Bill that brings us closer to a Healthy Food Bill. To find out more, read the Sustainable Food report from the AMA's Council on Science and Public Health, on which the new policy is based. Additionally, check out the AMA's own press release and comments from Health Care Without Harm, of which IATP is a founding member.

David Wallinga, M.D.

Ben Lilliston

A Fresh Take on Food

Stepping into the Riverview Theater earlier this month, I didn't know what to make of the scene. The theater was packed: 700 people had come to a sold-out documentary about food. The film is called Fresh. There had been no paid media advertisements. No prominent reviews in the entertainment press. Aside from a few local media mentions, it was primarily a word-of-mouth affair organized on the fly in just a few weeks, led by Birchwood Cafe, IATP and the Land Stewardship Project.

The film does an outstanding job of portraying the local and sustainable food movement in the U.S. But the energy in the Riverview Theater told just as powerful a story about this exploding movement.

We sat down with the film's director Ana Joanes to discuss why she made Fresh and what she hopes the audience will get out of the film.

Ben Lilliston

June 15, 2009

Indirect Misdirect

Calculating the carbon footprint of corn-based ethanol (including indirect effects around the world) continues to be a political hot potato that threatens congressional negotiations to address global climate change. Earlier this month, we outlined some of the key issues in this debate between House Agriculture Chair Collin Peterson (D-MN) and Henry Waxman (D-CA), the lead author of the House climate bill.

In the Saturday issue of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, IATP President Jim Harkness, Michael Noble from Fresh Energy and Patrick Moore of Clean Up the River Environment, co-authored a commentary that offers a proposal to break the deadlock. 

They write: "Indirect land use change (ILUC) is real, but ILUC calculations need more research and development before they are used in policy. We need to better understand the links between what happens here in the Corn Belt and what happens in the rainforest, and we must figure out how to quantify indirect effects. Combining a commitment to do this research with a commitment to account for these emissions would be a better approach."

Read the full commentary.

Ben Lilliston

June 12, 2009

What to do about agriculture in climate negotiations

Agriculture is rapidly finding itself at the center of the climate change debate at national and international levels. In the U.S., members of Congress from farm states have threatened to block climate legislation unless agriculture is explicitly included as part of an offset program (including support for chemically intensive no-till practices, Grist's Tom Philpott reports). And this week at the global talks on a new climate pact in Bonn, farming was mentioned for the first time within the negotiating text.

Yesterday in Bonn, IATP co-organized a discussion on the effects of global climate change on agriculture  and agriculture's potential to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions. You can view the PowerPoint presentations of Doreen Stabinsky of Greenpeace International, IATP President Jim Harkness and Lim Li Lin of Third World Network. The International Institute for Sustainable Development has a rundown of the discussion as well as photos (scroll down to the bottom).

One of the most complicated questions associated with including agriculture in climate talks is how new rules to reduce greenhouse gas emissions could affect efforts to combat global hunger. As we reported in March, the global climate, food and water crises are interconnected. We cannot effectively address each separately. Or as IATP President Jim Harkness noted in a Reuters story from Bonn, "We ignore these connections at our peril."

Ben Lilliston

June 05, 2009

Cairns to Bali: Time for a new agricultural trade agenda

The group of 19 agricultural exporters known as the Cairns Group will meet June 7-9 in Bali, Indonesia. They will be discussing their position as a force within the WTO Doha negotiations on agriculture. The following opinion piece first ran on June 5 at On Line Opinion, an Australian e-journal for social and political debate. It was written jointly by Sophia Murphy and Adam Wolfenden.

Twenty-three years ago, in August 1986, Australia hosted a meeting of trade ministers from developed and developing countries. The parties were united by an interest in increasing their share of agricultural export markets and in containing the damage that U.S. and E.U. agricultural policies did to their export shares. The group was focused, committed and effective.

That was then. This week, Bali will host another meeting of the groupthe 33rd Cairns Group Ministerial. Over time, the membership has shifted and evolved. Hungary, once a member, joined the EU and had to resign. There is one African member, South Africa. Today, there are 19 members of the group.

The membership is not the only thing to have evolved in the past quarter of a century. So has our understanding of food security, the strengths and limitations of a free trade agenda, and the complex geo-politics of multilateral deal making. Indonesia is not just a member of the Cairns Group. It is also a founder and leader of the group of developing countries that has pushed for more sensitivity to the issues of food security and rural employment in the context of the Doha trade negotiations (known as the Group of 33 or G-33). Other countries that belong both to the Cairns Group and the G-33 include the Philippines, Pakistan and Peru. These countries are all anxious to export agricultural commodities—hence their membership in the Cairns Group. But they are all also acutely aware of the importance of agriculture for domestic food security, rural employment and political stability. The volatility of world commodity prices and the damage done to domestic production by import surges have made policymakers (and the public) wary of free trade agendas.

When food prices spiked dramatically in the first quarter of 2008, net-food importing developing countries (NFIDC) were paying very close attention to global markets. What they saw was disheartening for the free trade supporters. Big exporters, among them Cairns Group members, imposed restrictions that limited export volumes because they were worried about food security at home, further increasing NFIDC import bills. The proposal that food security can be found in open access to a global pantry looks distinctly untrue. The countries that can afford to are bypassing trade altogether in favor of investment: If they cannot grow their own food at home, they do not want to depend on the market. Instead, they are buying or leasing land across the world’s poorest countries to grow their food on someone else’s land instead. The trade policy consequences of this new situation are nowhere reflected in Cairns Group interventions in the Doha negotiations.

The global food crisis has shifted the debate and with it the major players. Trade negotiations in Geneva fell apart in July last year because many developing countries, including some Cairn’s group members, were insisting on the need for trade rules that respect their need to protect their rural economies as they think best. Most developed countries, Australia at the forefront, denied them that right, insisting in effect that the right to export trumped all else. This is a fundamental divide within the Cairns Group membership and puts in question whether it can be continue to play an effective role.

It is time for an honest dialogue about these tensions. Australia, and with it New Zealand and Canada, need to show they understand what the Philippines and Indonesia (and with them, a sizable group of developing countries) are saying about the importance of agriculture beyond the export sector. Indeed, there are doubtless some farmers here in Australia with something to say on that subject. And there are tens of millions more in Indonesia, and across the member countries of the group.

There is plenty of work left to do for a forum that includes both developed and developing country members and that understands agricultural trade. Governments and communities need to have a range of tools at their disposal to be ready for the challenges that lie ahead. This includes a greater emphasis on policies that encourage local investment in local markets, support ecologically and economically sustainable small-scale farming, safeguard local production from dumping, implement genuine agrarian reform, and allow the use of different trade instruments, including quotas and tariffs. All ideas supported by proponents of food sovereignty. And some of them are already on the table in Geneva, thanks to the proposals of the G-33, which is chaired by Indonesia.

The Cairns Group no longer links a small group of like-minded countries. Rather it is a forum that links decidedly different views of how to regulate international trade in agriculture. What an opportunity their ministerial provides to think through agricultural trade rules that could work for the 21st century.

Sophia Murphy is based in Adelaide and is a Senior Advisor for the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Minneapolis.

Adam Wolfenden is the Trade Justice Campaigner with the Australian Fair Trade and Investment Network (AFTINET), a network of over 90 organizations and individuals concerned about trade and investment policy.

Sophia Murphy

June 02, 2009

The Curious Case of Climate Policy and Corn Ethanol

Corn ethanol supporters’ claims that the fuel reduces greenhouse gas emissions are tenuous, at best. But corn ethanol might end up being the key to getting climate policyspecifically, the Waxman-Markey cap and trade legislationthrough Congress.

House Democratic leaders have vowed to move forward on the legislation, but a group of farm state representatives, including House Agriculture Committee Chair Collin Peterson (D-MN), are threatening to derail the bill.

They mainly want two things: for agricultural offsets to be regulated by the USDA, not the EPA (although as of now, Waxman-Markey does not include the role of farms or forests in emissions reductions scenarios); and to get indirect land use change out of the formula for calculating biofuels’ greenhouse gas emissions in the revised Renewable Fuel Standard  (the RFS2 is part of the 2007 energy bill, and has nothing to do with Waxman-Markey). See my blog post related to indirect land use change here.

Rep. Peterson and the mainstream agriculture lobby don’t trust the EPA on agriculture, a feeling that was heartily confirmed when the agency made the decision to include indirect land use in the revised RFS. EPA-controlled climate credits, therefore, scare the heck out of them.

Peterson introduced a bill on May 14 that would ban indirect land use change from the RFS2, but despite its 46 co-sponsors, there’s been no sign yet from Congress that they’ll reopen negotiations on that part of the 2007 energy legislation. There’s no question, however, that Peterson and his supporters make up a large enough group to successfully stop Waxman-Markey if they so choose.

Whether Peterson gets his way on indirect land use or not, it’s clear that U.S. climate policy both politically, as well as practicallywill have to walk hand-in-hand with U.S. agriculture policy to succeed. We'll write more soon on the connection between agriculture and climate policy, and specifically on the ways agriculture can play an important role in mitigating climate change.

Julia Olmstead

June 01, 2009


Devin Foote is a 24-year-old beginning farmer at Common Ground Farm in Beacon, New York. Throughout the growing season, Devin will be chronicling his experiences as a young farmer growing for a local food system.

May 28, 2009

The overcast, coastal-like mists have brought my attention to what is beneath all of the weeds that we are trying to stay on top of. And whenever I make a new pass through the field with the disc, I turn around to see swooping blue birds, yellow finches, and baby kill deer scurrying by to harvest the day's fresh offerings. My hand claps and whistles are never frequent enough to keep them away from our friend in the soil, Lumbricus terrestris.

The earthworm is a special sort of worm. Almost alone among its brethren, the earthworm does not inspire horror. In fact, the earthworm is almost alone among all invertebrates in the tenderness it inspires. Knowing that a worm in the sun is as good as dead—since its skin has no defense against desiccation—children often place them gently in the shadow of a log or cover them with a light handful of soil. We all remember our interaction as children with earthworms—be it a friend's earthworm box in their room or digging them up before going fishing with Dad. Without question, gardeners—above all—venerate the worm.

In his book Dirt: The Estatic Skin Under the Earth, William Bryant Logan points out much of what we already know: when worms are happy, there are lots of them. It is said that in a Danish forest soil, researchers have found a density of one million to one-and-a-half million worms per acre—more than two tons of worms! A rich grassland may bring up more than 500 worms out of a square-meter hole. This is not so remarkable when you recognize that eight relatively healthy worms will produce 1,500 offspring in half a year’s time.

The common earthworm is not native to the United States, having been brought over by colonists in the mid-nineteenth century. When it first appeared, it was not numerous. But as fields were cleared, its numbers increased to such a degree that the water of springs and wells became polluted by the number of dead worms. As often witnessed in nature, the corresponding introduction and increase of robins and other vermivores corrected the imbalance.

Regardless, the presence of earthworms is by and large a very good thing for the soil. Unlike a given fertilizer, it acts simultaneously on several different soil variables.

More than any other creature, the worm defines topsoil. Worms are basically blind; therefore, they see literally by eating. A worm is a long intestine. Soil, rich in dead organic matter, leaves, and especially manure, goes in one end and comes out the other—concentrated, enriched and well mixed—in the form of “castings.” Castings are so rich a source that at the farm I worked at last year, in preparation for making our potting mix, we would take a shovel and bucket into the woods, peel back a few leaves and collect two gallons per batch. It is said that a well-manured soil is almost always rich in worms. Up to ten tons of worm castings per acre per year enrich a soil under favorable conditions. The worm also senses and creates the topsoil in a very basic way: by going where the organic matter is, mixing it, and excreting it behind or above itself. Worms also bore down to the water table, but not into it. At the dry surface, too, they stop.

Some earthworms leave their castings on the surface, others in the body of the soil. These castings concentrate nutrients. Scientists estimate that worm castings contain five times more nitrogen, seven times more available phosphorus, 11 times more potash and 40 percent more humus than is usually found in the top six inches of soil. In addition, the castings mix the soil ingredients, facilitating further breakdown by microbes.

The earthworm's blindness does not hinder its motion; worms are pathfinders. A single acre of cultivated soil has been found to have more than six million worm channels whose presence significantly increases the soil’s ability to hold and percolate water. A clayey orchard soil had more than two million large channels—some the size of a little finger—in an acre, the equivalent of a two-inch drainage pipe! Others have found that down to a depth of four inches, up to 50 percent of the soil’s air capacity consists of the tunnels and cavities dug by worms.

Earthworms are the watchers of the soil. If you build soil, worms will come.

Now that our cover crops have been dried and turned under, the organic matter of which they are composed is the perfect food source for microorganisms and earthworms. As ecologically senstitive farming goes, large amounts of earthworms and microorganisms are often present in abundant numbers. We hope that our well-managed soil will pay off as we harvest for our first market this weekend and start our first distribution next Tuesday. Here's to the earthworm!   

Devin Foote