The Future of Farming

After reviewing  a paper written by Fischer et al. (2008) titled “Should agricultural policies encourage land sparing or wildlife-friendly farming”, I now realize that future agricultural practices are a key component in the effort to conserve biodiversity. As of now, cropland covers about 1/4th of the earth's surface (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). As the world population increases, more land or higher yield lands will be needed to sustain humanity's increase demand for food and fuel. Since agriculture has a huge impact on the environment, strict management strategies are needed to ensure that these future agriculture practices minimize the pressures they place on surrounding ecosystems and biodiversity. Fisher et al. (2008) discusses two management strategies for balancing the conservation of nature with the need to produce sufficient food for a growing population.
The first strategy discussed was land sparing farming, which focuces on intensive agriculture (high chemical inputs, irrigation, machinery, etc). This creates an environment harsh to most forms of life, but the high yield it generates preserves wilderness that would otherwise be converted to agriculture. In land sparing there is a strong contrast between land for agriculture and land for biodiverstiy, and the land itself seems to be essentially homogenous.

The second strategy discussed was wildlife friendly farming which focuses on the reduced use of chemicals, and the landscape itself is more heterogeneous from the planting of buffer zones. The agriculture yields tend to be lower per unit area; therefore,  higher yields require more land.

So which is better? Each strategy has its advantages and disadvantages. One thing to consider is the landscape's species turnover. In landscapes with little species turnover, land sparing has benefits for species that are sensitive to even low intensity agriculture. On the other hand, land sparing can be problematic in landscapes with high species turnover, because intensification anywhere is likely to result in substantial loss of species. Topography is another thing to consider since it affects the likelyhood of either strategy to be practiced. Wildlife friendly farming is more likely to occur in landscapes with complex topography where industrial agriculture and its machinery are difficult to implement. The condition of land needs to be considered also. Land sparing farming is not likely desireable in areas of poor nutrients, since the cost would be high and the damage to such systems likely severe.

The optimal strategy is not intuitively obvious with each having its own set of trade-offs. Nonetheless, I tend support the land-sparing strategy. The first reason for supporting land-sparing farming is that many species, especially those of conservation concern, seem to exhibit a convex density-yield function; therefore, they exist in areas where agriculture is extremely low (Karieva et al. 2011). Another reason for my support is the studies conducted by Kleijn et al. in 2001. They found only small benefits of agri-environment schemes that included actions ranging from land set-asides to delayed plowing for the sake of bird nesting to enhancement of diverse vegetation at the edge of fields. This study set off a firestorm of controversy the European Union had invested $25 billion US dollars in these schemes. Adding fuel to the fire, a later review of 62 separate studies by similarly found minimal benefit (Kleijn and Sutherland 2003).

Most people would side with wildlife-friendly farming when considering the external costs of both strategies. However, it’s important to note that the external effects of agriculture are a product of both intensity and area. Land-sparing farming has high external environmental costs per unit area, but they must be weighed against reduced external costs per area spread over a larger land area. For example, an abundance of low yield farms could increase habitat fragmentation. Also, I believe that the externalities from land-sparing farming, such as pesticide drift and nutrient runoff, can open doors for new industries that create jobs from the production of sustainable intensification products and practices. Low-external-input (LEI) agriculture can make the use of fertilizers and other inputs more efficient and many farmers are now adopting integrated pest management techniques that help reduce the use of synthetic pesticides (Karieva et al. 2011).

Beyond utilitarian considerations, the wildlife-friendly farming/land-sparing debate raises philosophical questions about protecting biodiversity. Though I am not that familiar with the debate, it reminds me of the 19th century debate between preservationists and conservationists. Preservationists advocated unaltered nature for its own sake, while the latter argued that nature should be managed for human benefit. In the present context, land sparing might permit larger areas of unaltered nature in the form of natural parks and wildlife preserves, while wildlife-friendly farming would permit land use that is beneficial to humans at minimum cost to biodiversity. It is interesting to me how contemporary environmentalists sort out along philosophical lines. In general, it seems that those with a biological inclination lean toward wildlife-friendly farming, while developmental economists and agriculturalists advocate land sparing.

CITED:

Fischer, J., B. Brosi, G. C. Daily, P. R. Ehrlich, R. Goldman, J. Goldstein, D. B. Lindenmayer, A. D. Manning, H. A. Mooney, L. Pejchar, J. Ranganathan, and H. Tallis. 2008. Should agricultural policies encourage land sparing or wildlife-friendly farming? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 6: 380-385.

Kareiva, Peter and Michelle Marvier. 2011. Conservation Science, balancing the needs of people and nature. Roberts and Company, Greenwood Village, Colorado.

Kleijn D., F. Berendse, R. Smit, and N.Gilissen. 2001. Agri-environment schemes do not

effectively protect bio-diversity in Dutch agriculture landscapes. Nature 413:723-725.

Kleijn D. and W.J. Sutherland. 2003. How effective are European agri-environment

schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity? Journal of Applied Ecology 40: 947-969.

MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and human well being: synthesis report. Washington, DC: Island Press.

The Bait State?

The South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) wrote a law in 2008 that stated: "In Game Zones 1 and 2, it is unlawful to pursue deer with dogs, and it is unlawful to bait for deer.”  South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson has determined that this current state law makes it illegal to bait for deer, but not illegal to hunt deer over bait, in Game Zones 1 and 2; Therefore, in the upstate, one can't put out bait for deer, but if bait is present it is not illegal to hunt deer over that bait.

SCDNR sees the attorney general's interpretation of this law on deer baiting in the upstate unenforceable; Therefore, legislators are scrambling to address the issue in time to change the law before hunting season this fall. At issue is the wording of the law adopted by the legislature when it took regulatory authority for hunting on private lands in the Upstate region away from the S.C. Department of Natural Resources in 2008 and wrote new laws to govern hunting there.

The problem facing the legislators – and SCDNR enforcement – is that 2012 is the second year in a two-year session that ends the first of June. No time was wasted yesterday when the subcommittee addressed a bill that would amend this law by stating "In Games Zones 1 and 2, it is unlawful to pursue deer with dogs, and it is unlawful to bait for deer or hunt deer by aid of bait."

It was clear from the start that both sides of the deer baiting issue were present at the hearing. Those against deer baiting in the upstate argued that the practice skews deer gender ratios, spreads disease, hurts native habitat management efforts, gives hunting a bad public image and raises ethical dilemmas about a fair chase.

Since baiting for deer is allowed in the low country, those that supported baiting for deer in the upstate argued that everyone should be treated the same. Leading those in support of baiting was Senator Jake Knotts. He stated that he had residents that were allowed to bait on one side of their property and not allowed on the other. He acknowledged the experts warnings that baiting spreads diseases, such as chronic wasting disease, but questioned the probability that the disease would spread to South Carolina.

Because of the large turnout and time constraints not allowing some to get their chance to speak, the subcommittee failed to cast a vote yesterday. From the hearing yesterday one can conclude that baiting is no doubt an important issue and that there are people on both sides of the fence. The biggest problem I have is "What is considered bait?" Are protein tablets considered bait? Are foot plots considered bait? To me baiting is anything that alters natural movements of animals. I believe SCDNR would have to give a clear definition of the word bait for any law that prohibits baiting to be properly enforced.

Climate Change...The REAL Tradegy of the Commons

The root cause of any tragedy of the commons is that when individuals use a public good, they do not bear the entire social cost of their actions. If each seeks to maximize individual benefit, he or she will place the burden of an external cost onto others. In common with many other environmental problems, human-induced climate change is at its most basic level a negative externality. Those who produce greenhouse-gas emissions are bringing about climate change, thereby imposing costs on the world and future generations, but they do not face directly, neither through markets nor in other ways, the full consequences of the costs of their actions. It differs from other externalities in that it is global in its causes and consequences and its impacts are long term and persistent. The impacts of climate change are very broad ranging and interact with economic dynamics, giving rise to many complex policy problems.

Although the cause of climate change is debated, most people would agree that it exists. In today's struggling economy, how big of an issue will climate change policy be in the upcoming presidential election? By then, could we be facing doubled or tripled electric bills with gas prices at $5 a gallon? Just how unpleasant are people willing to be to prevent climate change?

A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy today. Should we just let China's and India's "Industrial Revolution" continue with uncontrollable carbon emissions? What is their alternatives? I've seen no evidence that the Chinese or Indians plan to do much of anything to reduce their emissions in the near future. For economic reasons, I don't blame them - I'd be less than enthusiastic about a bunch of rich countries telling me that I wasn't allowed to get rich too, because that would be bad for the planet.

Since climate change is tied to economics, our best hope is that policy will lead to innovations which make alternatives to carbon super cheap. This would beneficial to everyone, and the transition from an oil based economy to a carbon alternative economy would not be as economically unpleasant. Climate change is global in its causes and consequences; therefore, should be global in its policy and solutions. No doubt that complex policy challenges will be involved in managing the transition to a low carbon economy and to ensure that societies can adapt to the consequences of climate change.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=U-VmIrGGZgAC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=deny+climate+change&ots=9cpU6wmtsa&sig=7oJODHHWKo04CG5iS8pQ9l0fb2Y#v=onepage&q=deny%20climate%20change&f=false

Too Much of Anything Is a Bad Thing

For a while it was talked about. There was a worldwide population control movement that was active throughout the 1960's and 70's, driving many reproductive health and family planning programs. In the 80's, tension grew between population control advocates and women's heath activists who advanced women's reproductive rights as part of a human rights based approach. Soon there was a growing opposition to the narrow population control focus which led to a significant change in population control policies in the early 90's.

With the populations of China and India over the one billion mark, and dwindling populations such as Germany and Russian giving government incentives to reproduce, the time for such coyness is long past. With several generations of population growth, are we now heading toward a Malthusian catastrophe? In 1798, Thomas Malthus published An Essay on the Principle of Population, in which he wrote:

"The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race. The vices of mankind are active and able ministers of depopulation. They are the precursors in the great army of destruction, and often finish the dreadful work themselves. But should they fail in this war of extermination, sickly seasons, epidemics, pestilence, and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and tens of thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic inevitable famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow levels the population with the food of the world".

Despite what many people say, food production is not the main problem resulting from too many people. The real problem is the utilisation of the world's finite resources - metals, fuels and so forth. Conserving our food and natural resources will not only require changes in the techniques of natural resource management but a change in the way human values and mortality are perceived. Both task are daunting. In addition to the natural systems, natural resource management also has to manage various stakeholders and their interests, policies, politics, geographical boundaries, economic implications and the list goes on. It is very difficult to satisfy all aspects at the same time. This results in conflicting situations. Controlling people's personal decisions on how many children they want to have is a complicated and touchy issue as well. Educating young girls is extremely important. Tim Wirth, the president of the United Nations Foundation, says that when women in the poorest countries are given increase access to educational opportunities, birth rates decline. Improved assess to birth control more family planning programs could help also.

Ultimately, unless mankind starts to control its population, the world's resources will be unable to sustain that population. The best way too take action for population control is to bring attention to the problem.  Enough attention can lay the ground work for a long lasting population control movement.
The time to start talking and debating and planning is now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_population_control
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Malthus

"Top Down" In the Rain

The golden years for conservation and environmental protection seemed to be in the 70's and 80's. Led by Aldo Leopold, a science based conservation movement swept through this country that led to the Endangered Species Act and brought a tremendous increase in the number of agencies and groups devoted to the conservation of all species. By the 80's, wildlife conservation seemed to peak and was gaining an incredible amount of attention. This attention ultimately led to its downfall. Wildlife conservation agencies and groups quickly became politicised, pushing policy and action plans backed by political pressures instead of actual science. Even though scientific management is one of the seven sisters of the North American Conservation model, we seem to be taking a top-down management approach to conservation. Top-down management basically means you take a running system and look at it "top-down", in its entirety, and develop policy based on that perspective. The problem with this approach is that the ones at the top are at an increased rick to be swayed by political pressures.

"Where once professional managers determined the direction and content of agency policy and action,  now they are virtually powerless and the control of management rests with career politicians and administration professionals whose primary interest is to ensure the people in the field take top-down direction regardless of the science."

Is the top-down approach being implemented in South Carolina? The director of the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) is being forced into retirement, by a board, most of whose members were selected by Gov. Nikki Haley last year. One might recall the director of the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) resigned a short time ago after a new Haley picked board took control of that agency. Haley has stated publicly that she had nothing to do with the retirement of either Frampton or DHEC chief Earl Hunter, but she was aware that the members of the board were ready for the agency to go in a different direction. South Carolina has now chosen its law enforcement chief Alvin Taylor to take over SCDNR operations. Alvin Taylor has an extensive law enforcement background and has consistently risen through the ranks, but how much does he know about actual conservation? Following Frampton's questionable retirement, its going to be interesting to see the direction Taylor plans to take. Will Taylor push policy backed by science or will he give into the political pressures of the board? Conservation needs to be driven by the people who know best how to deliver it. Taylor needs to bring with him a bottom-up approach to conservation and management. He needs to empower the individuals who are actually in the field doing the "dirty" work.  With enough science on his side, he has the power to transform conservation even in the most politically complicated conditions.

http://www.arubewithaview.com/blog/tag/wildlife-policy

A video of me shaking hands with Newt and Callista Gengrich outside Mutt's Barbecue in Easley, SC. Inside, he spoke about creating jobs and voiced his opinion on Obama's decision to reject the permit for the construction of the Keystone pipeline earlier that day. He criticized Obama's decision saying that, historically, it would go down as one of the worst decisions by a president. Although I support Obama's decision because of the sixty day time constraint that was placed on the approval for the permit, I stuck around long enough hoping I would get called on for a questionnaire. I was never called on but my question for Mr. Gengrich would have been; In this tough economy, at what point does wildlife and the environment become a factor in decision and policy making when jobs that are stimulated from development are needed?



Can our farmers afford more regulation?

The Natural Resource Report out of Oregon warns farmers that more regulation is soon to come.

http://naturalresourcereport.com/2012/01/farmers-warned-were-all-one-regulation-away-from-jail-or-bankruptcy/

Before placing more regulation on farmers, will the EPA please define "ecological sustainability". When will the EPA start to recognize individual private property rights? I agree that farmers need to become more involved in these issues and use the media to publicize their concerns.