USGS Report Released: Estimating Irrigation Water use in the Humid Eastern United States

Recently, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) released a report titled Estimating Irrigation Water use in the Humid Eastern United States (USGS Sci. Investgn. Rep. 2013-5060). The 44-page report available here, authored by Sara B. Levis and Phillip J. Zariello, discusses the following:

[a]ccurate accounting of irrigation water use is an important part of the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Use Information Program and the WaterSMART initiative to help maintain sustainable water resources in the Nation. Irrigation water use in the humid eastern United States is not well characterized because of inadequate reporting and wide variability associated with climate, soils, crops, and farming practices. To better understand irrigation water use in the eastern United States, two types of predictive models were developed and compared by using metered irrigation water-use data for corn, cotton, peanut, and soybean crops in Georgia and turf farms in Rhode Island. Reliable metered irrigation data were limited to these areas. The first predictive model that was developed uses logistic regression to predict the occurrence of irrigation on the basis of antecedent climate conditions. Logistic regression equations were developed for corn, cotton, peanut, and soybean crops by using weekly irrigation water-use data from 36 metered sites in Georgia in 2009 and 2010 and turf farms in Rhode Island from 2000 to 2004. For the weeks when irrigation was predicted to take place, the irrigation water-use volume was estimated by multiplying the average metered irrigation application rate by the irrigated acreage for a given crop. The second predictive model that was developed is a crop-water-demand model that uses a daily soil water balance to estimate the water needs of a crop on a given day based on climate, soil, and plant properties. Crop-water-demand models were developed independently of reported irrigation water-use practices and relied on knowledge of plant properties that are available in the literature. Both modeling approaches require accurate accounting of irrigated area and crop type to estimate total irrigation water use. Water-use estimates from both modeling methods were compared to the metered irrigation data from Rhode Island and Georgia that were used to develop the models as well as two independent validation datasets from Georgia and Virginia that were not used in model development. Irrigation water-use estimates from the logistic regression method more closely matched mean reported irrigation rates than estimates from the crop-water-demand model when compared to the irrigation data used to develop the equations. The root mean squared errors (RMSEs) for the logistic regression estimates of mean annual irrigation ranged from 0.3 to 2.0 inches (in.) for the five crop types; RMSEs for the crop-water-demand models ranged from 1.4 to 3.9 in. However, when the models were applied and compared to the independent validation datasets from southwest Georgia from 2010, and from Virginia from 1999 to 2007, the crop-water-demand model estimates were as good as or better at predicting the mean irrigation volume than the logistic regression models for most crop types. RMSEs for logistic regression estimates of mean annual irrigation ranged from 1.0 to 7.0 in. for validation data from Georgia and from 1.8 to 4.9 in. for validation data from Virginia; RMSEs for crop-water-demand model estimates ranged from 2.1 to 5.8 in. for Georgia data and from 2.0 to 3.9 in. for Virginia data. In general, regression-based models performed better in areas that had quality daily or weekly irrigation data from which the regression equations were developed; however, the regression models were less reliable than the crop-water-demand models when applied outside the area for which they were developed. In most eastern coastal states that do not have quality irrigation data, the crop-water-demand model can be used more reliably. The development of predictive models of irrigation water use in this study was hindered by a lack of quality irrigation data. Many mid-Atlantic and New England states do not require irrigation water use to be reported. A survey of irrigation data from 14 eastern coastal states from Maine to Georgia indicated that, with the exception of the data in Georgia, irrigation data in the states that do require reporting commonly did not contain requisite ancillary information such as irrigated area or crop type, lacked precision, or were at an aggregated temporal scale making them unsuitable for use in the development of predictive models. Confidence in the reliability of either modeling method is affected by uncertainty in the reported data from which the models were developed or validated. Only through additional collection of quality data and further study can the accuracy and uncertainty of irrigation water-use estimates be improved in the humid eastern United States.

FAO Report Released: Understanding and Integrating Gender Issues into Livestock Projects and Programmes

Recently the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), a United Nations organization that focues on "rais[ing] levels of nutrition, improv[ing] agricultural productivity, better[ing] the lives of rural populations and contribut[ing] to the growth of the world economy" released a report titled, Understanding and Integrating Gender Issues into Livestock Projects and Programmes (2013). The 56-page report available here, discusses the following:

[i]n rural societies, where local culture and traditions are still very vibrant, responsibilities and tasks are often assigned to women and men on the basis of traditional gender roles, defined as those behaviours and responsibilities that a society considers appropriate for men, women, boys and girls. These roles change over time, have different characteristics in every local context and are shaped by ideological, religious, cultural, ethnic and economic factors. They are a key determinant of the distribution of resources and responsibilities between men and women (FAO, 2010b). In many cases gender roles are biased and favour certain social constituencies at the expense of others. Rural women, for instance, face serious obstacles more regularly than men, since traditional structures and perceptions tend to prevent them from obtaining the necessary tools to reach their full potential in the agricultural sector. In fact, despite their major involvement in and contribution to livestock management, women tend to have limited access to resources, extension services and less participation in decision making compared to their male counterparts (FAO, 2011a). Recognizing the different roles that women and men play in the agriculture sector is key to identifying the diverse challenges they face and tailoring projects and programmes on their specific needs. Understanding and integrating these diverse roles and specific dynamics into projects and programmes can significantly improve their outcomes and effectiveness (FAO, IFAD, World Bank, 2007; FAO, 2011a).

GAO Report Released: Agricultural Research: Two USDA Agencies Can Enhance Safeguards against Project Duplication and Strengthen Collaborative Planning

Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, titled Agricultural Research: Two USDA Agencies Can Enhance Safeguards against Project Duplication and Strengthen Collaborative Planning GAO-13-255 (Apr. 12, 2013). The details of the 54-page report, available here, are discussed below:

Why GAO Did This Study

The USDA's principal research agencies, ARS and NIFA, play a key role in supporting agricultural science, and questions have been raised about the extent to which the two agencies may be performing duplicative research and whether the agencies collaborate in planning research. Research duplication is the inadvertent repetition of research that does not confirm or verify conclusions from prior studies. Collaborative planning involves bringing together research agencies and stakeholders to discuss priorities and roles and responsibilities. In this context, GAO was asked to assess how these agencies ensure the efficient use of their resources for research. This report examines (1) the topics ARS and NIFA focus on and the safeguards the agencies use to prevent duplication of research projects, along with any shortcomings in those safeguards, and (2) collaborative planning ARS and NIFA engaged in and how, if at all, such planning could be enhanced. GAO reviewed USDA safeguards against duplication within and between ARS and NIFA; reviewed 20 randomly selected projects; analyzed information on collaborative planning; and interviewed officials from USDA, universities, and industry.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends, among other things, that ARS issue guidance that project information be provided to CRIS on a quarterly basis and that ARS and NIFA enhance collaborative planning. USDA generally agreed with GAO's findings, and cited benefits for three of the four recommendations.

U.K. House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee Report Released: Pollinators and Pesticides

Recently, the U.K. Parliment's  House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee, issued a report, titled, Pollinators and Pesticides (2013).  According to the 306-page report, available here, the following was discussed:

[t]he Government must introduce a precautionary moratorium on three pesticides linked to the decline of pollinators - imidacloprid, clothianidin and TMX – that suspends their use on flowering crops attractive to pollinators, Parliament’s cross-party green watchdog has said.

The Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, Joan Walley MP, commented:

“Defra seems to be taking an extraordinarily complacent approach to protecting bees given the vital free service that pollinators provide to our economy.

“If farmers had to pollinate fruit and vegetables without the help of insects it would cost hundreds of millions of pounds and we would all be stung by rising food prices.

“Defra Ministers have refused to back EU efforts to protect pollinators and can’t even come up with a convincing plan to encourage bee-friendly farming in the UK.”

FAO Report Released: Trends and Impacts of Foreign Investment in Developing Country Agriculture – Evidence from case studies

Recently the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), a United Nations organization that focues on "rais[ing] levels of nutrition, improv[ing] agricultural productivity, better[ing] the lives of rural populations and contribut[ing] to the growth of the world economy" released a report titled, Trends and Impacts of Foreign Investment in Developing Country Agriculture – Evidence from Case Studies (2013). The 378-page report available here, discusses the following:

FAO estimates that net investments to the tune of more than USD 80 billion a year are needed if food production is to keep pace with rising demand as incomes grow and population exceeds 9 billion people in 2050. Investors today are keen to capitalize on current high international food prices, and actively seek investment opportunities in developing countries, notably where natural resources abound. Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) flows to developing countries doubled in 2006–08, but the share going to the agrifood sector is small – less than 5 percent of total FDI. The bulk of this goes to downstream activities (processing and distribution) and less than 10 percent to primary agricultural production.

FAO Report Released: Enabling Environments for Agribusiness and Agro-industries Development

Recently the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), a United Nations organization that focues on "rais[ing] levels of nutrition, improv[ing] agricultural productivity, better[ing] the lives of rural populations and contribut[ing] to the growth of the world economy" released a report titled, Enabling Environments for Agribusiness and Agro-industries Development (2013).  The 71-page report available here,  discusses the following:

[t]he existence of a conducive business climate, or enabling environment, is considered essential to engender economic growth and development. However, what “an enabling environment” should encompass in practical terms remains elusive to many scholars and policy makers, particularly when discussed at the sub-sector level. This publication by FAO’s Rural Infrastructure and Agro-Industries Division (AGS) examines issues associated with enabling environments with a focus on agribusiness and agro-industrial sectors, which have not had their peculiar characteristics sufficiently examined in traditional appraisals of business climates. Based on a series of workshops and consultations organized by AGS in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe and Latin America, the report reviews existing frameworks for general enabling environment assessments and discusses their relevance to agribusiness and agro-industries. It also discusses the challenges of enabling environment reforms and identifies a number of essential, important and useful enablers that are particularly relevant to agrifood business climate appraisals and upgrading.

GAO Report Released: Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Fees: Major Changes Needed to Align Fee Revenues with Program Costs

Recently, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report, titled Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Fees: Major Changes Needed to Align Fee Revenues with Program Costs GAO-13-268 (Mar. 1, 2013). The details of the 56-page report, available here, are discussed below:

Why GAO Did This Study

The AQI program guards against agriculture threats by inspecting international passengers and cargo at U.S. ports of entry, seizing prohibited material, and intercepting foreign agricultural pests. The program, which cost $861 million in 2011, is funded from annual appropriations and user fees. GAO has reported several times on the need to revise the fees to cover program costs as authorized. In 2010, [Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)] initiated a review of AQI costs and fee design options. APHIS and CBP are considering options for a new fee structure. Pending departmental approval, APHIS expects to issue a proposed rule in fall 2013. GAO was asked to examine issues related to the AQI fees. This report examines 1) the fees currently charged and proposed revisions; 2) how fee revenues are allocated between the agencies; and 3) the extent to which fee collection processes provide reasonable assurance that all AQI fees due are collected. To do this, GAO reviewed AQI fee and cost data, and relevant laws, regulations, and policies; observed inspections at ports of entry; and interviewed APHIS and CBP officials.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making a number of recommendations aimed at more fully aligning fees with program costs, aligning the division of fees between APHIS and CBP with their respective costs, and ensuring that fees are collected when due. Further, GAO suggests Congress amend the AQI fee authority to allow the Secretary of Agriculture to set fee rates to recover the full costs of the AQI program. USDA and DHS generally agreed with the recommendations.

CRS Report Released: Environmental Regulation and Agriculture

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), the public policy research arm of Congress, recently issued the report Environmental Regulation and Agriculture (Feb. 22, 2013). The 51-page report authored by Megan Stubbs discusses the following:

Summary

As the U.S. and global economies continue to struggle, some inside and outside of Congress have expressed concern about how environmental regulation may stifle growth and productivity. Much of the criticism has focused on environmental regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Some claim that EPA is overreaching its regulatory authority and imposing costly and burdensome requirements on society. In general, the agriculture community, among others, has been vocal in its concerns, contending that EPA appears to be focusing some of its recent regulatory efforts on agriculture. Many public health and environmental advocates, on the other hand, support many of EPA’s overall regulatory efforts and in some cases argue that EPA has not taken adequate action to control the impacts of certain agricultural activities. Where agriculture contributes to environmental impairment, these groups say, it is appropriate to consider ways to minimize or eliminate the adverse impacts.

Growing interest in the impact of regulatory actions on many sectors of the economy is evident in Congress, which continues to examine the role of EPA and other federal agencies in regulating environmental protection. Congress has a number of policy options to address or respond to potential regulatory impacts

Most environmental regulations, in terms of permitting, inspection and enforcement, are implemented by state and local governments, often based on federal EPA regulatory guidance. In some cases, agriculture is the direct or primary focus of the regulatory actions. In other cases, agriculture is one of many affected sectors. Traditionally, farm and ranch operations have been exempt or excluded from many environmental regulations. Given the agricultural sector’s size and its potential to affect its surrounding environment, there is interest in both managing potential impacts of agricultural actions on the environment and also maintaining an economically viable agricultural industry. Of particular interest to agriculture are a number of regulatory actions affecting air, water, energy, and chemicals.

Air

Agricultural production practices from both livestock and crop operations generate a variety of substances that enter the atmosphere, potentially creating health and environmental issues. Recent actions by EPA to regulate emissions and pollutants have drawn criticism, including greenhouse gas emission reporting and permitting requirements, and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) related to particulate matter (commonly referred to as dust). The agricultural community continues to show particular interest in NAAQS because some farming and livestock practices contribute to particulate matter emissions.

Water

Water quality issues also are of interest to the agricultural industry. Water is an input for production and can also be degraded as a result of production through the potential release of sediment, nutrients, pathogens, and pesticides. The extent and magnitude of water quality degradation from agriculture practices varies greatly, but agriculture is proven to be a significant source of impairment of several U.S. waters. Federal environmental laws largely do not regulate agricultural actors, in many cases giving the regulatory responsibilities to the states. One exception is large concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), which are subject to permitting requirements. Constraints on agricultural production to reduce pollution discharges typically arise at the state level in response to local concerns, and how to manage agricultural sources has been a prominent issue in several large watershed restoration efforts, such as those in the Chesapeake Bay and Florida Everglades.

Energy

Changes in energy policy, namely increased bioenergy production, have recently become important to many in the agricultural industry, based on the potential of corn-based biofuel production to contribute to the nation’s energy supply through both the renewable fuel standard (RFS) and the increased percentage of ethanol in gasoline (E15).

Chemicals

Hundreds of chemical products are available to repel or kill “pests” that affect agricultural production. The federal regulation of these chemicals includes registering and restricting their use. The risks associated with agricultural chemical use and possible impacts on human health and the environment also have led to recent federal regulatory reviews of chemical fertilizer and pesticide use.

CRS Report Released: Agricultural Conservation: A Guide to Programs

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), the public policy research arm of Congress, recently issued the report Agricultural Conservation: A Guide to Programs (Feb. 5, 2013). The 30-page report authored by Megan Stubbs discusses the following:

Summary

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Farm Service Agency (FSA) in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) currently administer over 20 programs and subprograms that are directly or indirectly available to assist producers and landowners who wish to practice conservation on agricultural lands. The number, scope, and overall funding of these programs has grown in recent years. This growth can cause some confusion over which problems and conditions each program addresses, and specific program characteristics and performance. The programs are as follows:

• Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA) Program

• Chesapeake Bay Watershed Program

• Cooperative Conservation Partnership Initiative (CCPI)

• Conservation Operations (CO); Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA)

• Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

• CRP—Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP)

• CRP—Farmable Wetlands Program

• Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP)

• Emergency Conservation Program (ECP)

• Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) Program

• Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

• EQIP—Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP)

• EQIP—Conservation Innovation Grants (CIG)

• Farmland Protection Program (FPP)

• Grassland Reserve Program (GRP)

• Healthy Forest Reserve Program (HFRP)

• Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Program

• Voluntary Public Access and Habitat Incentive Program

• Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations

• Watershed Rehabilitation Program

• Wetland Reserve Program (WRP)

• Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP)

This tabular presentation provides basic information introducing each of the programs. In each case, a brief program description is followed by information on major amendments in the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-246); national scope and availability; states with the greatest participation; the backlog of applications or other measures of continuing interest; program funding authority; FY2012 funding; FY2013 Administration budget request; FY2013 funding where available; statutory authority; the authorization expiration date; and a link to the program’s website.

CRS Report: Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), the public policy research arm of Congress, recently issued the report Hemp as an Agricultural Commodity (Dec. 18, 2012). The 26-page report authored by Renée Johnson discusses the following:

Summary

Industrial hemp is a variety of Cannabis sativa and is of the same plant species as marijuana. However, hemp is genetically different and distinguished by its use and chemical makeup. Hemp has long been cultivated for non-drug use in the production of industrial and other goods. Some estimate that the global market for hemp consists of more than 25,000 products. It can be grown as a fiber, seed, or other dual-purpose crop. Hemp fibers are used in a wide range of products, including fabrics and textiles, yarns and raw or processed spun fibers, paper, carpeting, home furnishings, construction and insulation materials, auto parts, and composites. The interior stalk (hurd) is used in various applications such as animal bedding, raw material inputs, low-quality papers, and composites. Hemp seed and oilcake are used in a range of foods and beverages, and can be an alternative food protein source. Oil from the crushed hemp seed is an ingredient in a range of body-care products and also nutritional supplements. Hemp seed is also used for industrial oils, cosmetics and personal care, and pharmaceuticals, among other composites.

Precise data are not available on the size of the U.S. market for hemp-based products. Current industry estimates report that U.S. retail sales of all hemp-based products may exceed $300 million per year. Because there is no commercial industrial hemp production in the United States, the U.S. market is largely dependent on imports, both as finished hemp-containing products and as ingredients for use in further processing. Under the current U.S. drug policy, all cannabis varieties, including hemp, are considered Schedule I controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA, 21 U.S.C. §§801 et seq.;Title 21 CFR Part 1308.11). As such, while there are legitimate industrial uses, these are controlled and regulated by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Strictly speaking, the CSA does not make growing hemp illegal; rather, it places strict controls on its production and enforces standards governing the security conditions under which the crop must be grown, making it illegal to grow without a DEA permit. Currently, cannabis varieties may be legitimately grown for research purposes only. Among the concerns over changing current policies is how to allow for hemp production without undermining the agency’s drug enforcement efforts and regulation of the production and distribution of marijuana.

Inthe early 1990s a sustained resurgence of interest in allowing commercial cultivation of industrial hemp began in the United States. Several states have conducted economic or market studies, and have initiated or passed legislation to expand state-level resources and production. To date, nine states have legalized the cultivation and research of industrial hemp, including Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota, Oregon, Vermont, and West Virginia. However, because federal law still prohibits cultivation, a grower still must get permission from the DEA in order to grow hemp, or face the possibility of federal charges or property confiscation, despite having a state-issued permit.

Over the past few Congresses, Representative Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would open the way for commercial cultivation of industrial hemp in the United States (H.R. 1831, 112th Congress H.R. 1866, 111th Congress; H.R. 1009, 110th Congress; H.R. 3037, 109th Congress). In the 112th Congress, Senator Ron Wyden similarly introduced S. 3501 in the Senate. The Industrial Hemp Farming Act would amend Section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(16)) to specify that the term “marijuana”does not include industrial hemp, which the bill would define based on its content of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), marijuana’s primary psychoactive chemical. Such a change could remove low-THC hemp from being covered by the CSA as a controlled substance and subject to DEA regulation, thus allowing for industrial hemp to be grown and processed under some state laws.

Congressional Research Service Report Released: Emergency Assistance for Agricultural Land Rehabilitation

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), the public policy research arm of Congress, just issued the report Emergency Assistance for Agricultural Land Rehabilitation (Dec, 11, 2012). The 16-page report authored by Megan Stubbs discusses the following:

Summary

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers several permanently authorized programs to help producers recover from natural disasters. Most of these programs offer financial assistance to producers for a loss in the production of crops or livestock. In addition to the production assistance programs, USDA also has several permanent disaster assistance programs that help producers repair damaged crop and forest land following natural disasters. These programs offer financial and technical assistance to producers to repair, restore, and mitigate damage on private land. These emergency agricultural land assistance programs include the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP), the Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP), and the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program. In addition to these programs, USDA also has flexibility in administering other programs that allow for support and repair of damaged cropland in the event of an emergency.

Both ECP and EFRP are administered by USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA). ECP assists landowners in restoring agricultural production damaged by natural disaster. Participants are paid a percentage of the cost to restore the land to a productive state. ECP is available only on private land and eligibility is determined locally. EFRP was created to assist private forestland owners to address damage caused by a natural disaster on nonindustrial private forest land. The EWP program and the EWP floodplain easement program are administered by USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The EWP program assists sponsors, landowners, and operators in implementing emergency recovery measures for runoff retardation and erosion prevention to relieve imminent hazards to life and property created by a natural disaster. In some cases this can include state and federal land. The EWP floodplain easement program is a mitigation program that pays for permanent easements on private land meant to safeguard lives and property from future floods, drought, and the products of erosion.

 Most of the emergency agricultural land assistance programs are funded through supplemental appropriations, rather than annual appropriations. As a result, funding for emergency agricultural land assistance varies greatly from year to year. Agricultural land assistance programs do not usually receive the level of attention that triggers a supplemental appropriation. Therefore, funding is typically provided for these land assistance programs as part of a larger supplemental appropriation that funds a number of agencies and programs beyond agriculture. This irregular funding method has left some agricultural land assistance programs without funding during times of high request.

Recent restrictions placed on supplemental appropriations for disaster assistance have changed the way the agricultural land assistance programs allocate funding, potentially assisting fewer natural disasters. Language in the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25) limits emergency supplemental funding for disaster relief. Specifically, funding used for disaster relief must be used for activities carried out pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288) for FY2012 through FY2021. This means funds appropriated through emergency supplementals for disaster relief for these ten years may only apply to activities with a Stafford Act designation. Since funding for agricultural land disaster assistance programs is appropriated almost exclusively through supplementals, this requirement could limit the way agricultural land assistance programs work in the future, potentially assisting
fewer natural disaster events.

Congressional Research Service Report Released: Deregulating Genetically Engineered Alfalfa and Sugar Beets: Legal and Administrative Responses

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), the public policy research arm of Congress, just issued the report Deregulating Genetically Engineered Alfalfa and Sugar Beets: Legal and Administrative Responses (Sept. 10, 2012). The brief 18 page report authored by Tadlock Cowen and Kristina Alexander discusses the current status of the situation involving the deregulation genetically engineered crops and the Monsanto Corporation,

the developer of herbicide-tolerant varieties of genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa and sugar beet (called Roundup Ready alfalfa and Roundup Ready sugar beet), petitioned USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) for deregulation of the items. Deregulation of GE plants is the final step in the commercialization process. Monsanto filed a petition for deregulation of its GE alfalfa in 2004, and for GE sugar beets in 2005.

 

Environmental Law Research Reports: Subsidies with Responsibilities

The Environmental Law Institute (ELI) just published a new Research Report titled, Subsidies with Responsibilities: Placing Stewardship and Disclosure Conditions on Government Payments to Large-Scale Commodity Crop Operations.  This report is currently downloadable for free from the Institute.

This Environmental Law Institute report recommends that large-scale commodity crop operations that opt to receive any form of federal farm subsidy, including subsidized crop insurance, be assigned responsibility for: putting in place basic measures to reduce water pollution from fertilizer runoff; and disclosing information to the public about the quantity, type, and timing of fertilizers they apply. Runoff from the production of major commodity crops such as corn, soybeans, and wheat can contribute significantly to downstream water pollution. Many farming operations already implement stewardship measures, yet nutrient pollution remains a significant national problem. 

For the uninitiated, ELI Research Reports contain "the analysis and conclusions of the policy studies the [ELI] undertakes to improve environmental law." Most of the older reports on this site are available for free (pdf format) from the organization with the proviso that the User provide their email address; other reports are available for purchase for a nominal fee.  A database of reports is available at http://www.elistore.org/reports.asp.  Users can search by title, author, or keyword or in the alternative, they can chose from a subject specifc list including:

Africa Program

Air

Biodiversity and Invasive Species

Climate Change

Community Environmental Health and Education

Conservation

Contaminated Sites/Brownfields

Educational Programs and Materials

Energy and Innovation

Enforcement and Compliance

Environmental Consequences of War

Environmental Information

Environmental Justice

Environmental Management and Governance

Federal and State Relations

India Program

Indoor Environments and Green Building

Inter-American Program

International

International (all available publications)

International Governance

Mining

Nanotechnology

NEPA

Oceans

Pollution Prevention

Public Participation

Sustainable Development

Sustainable Use of Land

Water Management and Governance

Water Pollution Prevention

Wetlands

Environmental Working Group 2011 Shopper's Guide to Pesticides

This guide from the Environmental Working Group finds that "The health benefits of a diet rich in fruits and vegetables outweigh the risks of pesticide exposure. [However, you should] reduce your exposures as much as possible, but eating conventionally-grown produce is far better than not eating fruits and vegetables at all.

The Shopper's Guide to Pesticide in Produce will help you determine which fruits and vegetables have the most pesticide residues and are the most important to buy organic. You can lower your pesticide intake substantially by avoiding the 12 most contaminated fruits and vegetables and eating the least contaminated produce."

Food Security, Farming, and Climate Change to 2050: Scenarios, Results, Policy Options -- IFPI

This report by the International Food Policy Research Institute, copyright dated 2010, provides an analysis of the scope of climate change as it relates to food security, including who will be most affected and what policymakers can do to facilitate adaptation.

Using empirical analysis, the authors suggest that policymakers should take into account (1) the value of broad-based sustainable development, (2) the power of investments to enhance agricultural productivity, (3) the importance of an open world trade system, and (4) the need for early action on both adaptation and mitigation. As policymakers in the developing world well know, neither food security nor climate change can be viewed in isolation. This report will be indispensible to readers trying to tackle these inextricably linked issues.

Potomac Conservancy Report: State of the Nation's River 2010

This report Farms and Forests: Rural Land Use in the Potomac Watershed, highlights the value of our natural and working landscapes, as well as the pressures facing both from man-made causes, primarily development.

The report makes the case for placing a high value on forested lands, and also appropriately scaled and well-managed farms, by recognizing the value of such lands when compared to developed or built environments. We highlight the importance of rural lands in this developing watershed, and discuss the stressors that are currently affecting the health of lands and waters in the Potomac region.

The potential for significant pollution from agricultural lands does not diminish the cultural and economic importance of farming. Pollution from nutrients, disease-causing organisms such as E. coli and carcinogens and mutagens such as endocrine disrupting compounds from antibiotics, herbicides, and pesticides can be lessened with adherence to best management practices.

Green Supply Chain - UK Conference

This year's Green Supply Chain focuses on integration between the biorenewable sectors. The conference is a unique opportunity to see a synthesis of the biorenewables industry, from field, to markets, to waste and back again.

With world-class speakers and industry leaders including Dr Jeremy Tomkinson from the NNFCC, Jeremy Woods of Imperial College, Richard Cross of KW Trident, Roger Morton from Axion, Jim Davies of BA, Chris Miles from Econergy and John Baldwin of CNG services.

Location: The Cedar Court Grand Hotel & Spa, Station Rise, York, YO1 6HT
Topic: Integration: The key to a renewable carbon economy
Dates: 04 Nov 2010 - 05 Nov 2010

Conserving Habitat through the Federal Farm Bill - A Guide for Land Trusts and Landowners

This Guide from the Defenders of Wildlife provides the information and
tools on Farm Bill conservation programs. It includes:

♦ A concise introduction to the Farm Bill and its conservation programs, the agencies involved and general eligibility requirements;
♦ Detailed but accessible information on each of the most relevant conservation programs offered through the 2008 Farm Bill;
♦ Time-saving tips for choosing the right program, navigating the application process and increasing the competitiveness of your applications to improve
your chances of securing funding;
♦ Recommendations on how to use the Farm Bill strategically and how to influence its implementation and local priorities;
♦ Case studies to illustrate how land managers have concretely and creatively leveraged Farm Bill dollars to maximize benefits;
♦ Guidance on working with local U.S. Department of Agriculture agency representatives and partnering with conservation organizations, landowners and others.

It Takes A Region: A Working Conference to Build our Northeast Food System

The 18th conference and annual meeting of the Northeast Sustainable Agriculture Working Group (NESAWG)

When:
November 12-13, 2010 with Pre-Conference Trainings, November 11

Where:
Desmond Hotel and Conference Center, Albany, NY

A USDA Regional Roadmap to Meeting the Biofuels Goals of the Renewable Fuels Standard by 2022

This USDA Biofuels Strategic Production Report, dated June 23, 2010 is intended to start compiling real world data that would indicate the size and scope of the investments necessary to achieve 36 billion gallons of renewable biofuels by 2022.

What USDA has shown in this report is:
(1) A rapid build-up in production capabilities is needed to meet the RFS2 targets for cellulosic biofuels.
(2) The scope of the monetary investment for biorefineries is substantial.
(3) It is important to consider both sides of the market – the production/supply side and mandate/consumption side – and how they respond to the RFS2 mandate.
(4) There are current infrastructure needs, in the form of blender pumps and rail and trucking infrastructure which are in varying stages of being addressed by the market, though a careful assessment of barriers to their development is needed.
(5) The U.S. farm sector is capable of producing a diverse complement of feedstocks to make the biofuels industry a truly national effort.
(6) In addition, a process for identifying bottlenecks and barriers related to locating biorefineries involving the federal government, Congress, states, the industry and interested stakeholders can help facilitate a biorefinery system that is national in scope.