The World In a State of Extreme Transition: Moving from Sustainability to Regenerative Design

/by

Author: Daniel Pinchbeck and Schuyler Brown

Communication is the tool we use to navigate change in this perishable, impermanent world. We talk about what’s happening and what’s coming. We use words to rally and activate citizens; to inform and educate people; to alleviate or aggravate fears, depending on our intentions. Humans use language to make sense of things — even those things that are happening at a scale beyond our grasp. As Wittgenstein said, “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.” And so, while it may seem like rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic (let’s hope not!), reevaluating the language of climate change can offer a fresh perspective on where we are and where we’re headed.

In our view, the current language around climate change and its solutions is inadequate and even counterproductive. Specifically, we question whether sustainability, the default name for most current efforts towards preservation of life on the planet, keeps us locked into the assumption that whatever we do, we must also sustain the system that is currently in place. Perhaps, this limits us before we even start pursuing these goals in earnest. “Regenerative” — regenerative design, regenerative society, regenerative economics — appeals to us as a more ambitious and dynamic term commensurate with the type of ambitious and dynamic actions that are required for the survival of humanity now.

All successful movements have understood the use and power of language, this one is no different. If it is to succeed, we must be moved by the call-to-action we are being issued. Sustainability, to date, just has not achieved any such effect.

Sustainability, the ability to sustain life to a set of standards, needs to be eclipsed by a new paradigm. As a call-to-action, what sustainability seeks to sustain, above all, is some version of our current way of life, even though the evidence is totally overwhelming that it cannot continue. Living processes, generally, don’t just endure or persevere. Life either flourishes and blooms, evolves and transforms, or it stagnates and dies. The rhetoric of sustainability tends to support the belief that our current form of post-industrial capitalism can be reformed — that it can persist, in something close to its present order.

We propose the new paradigm emerge from the ideals of regenerative culture. We can look at our current institutions and ideologies as a substrate, a foundation, providing the conditions for another level of transformation, just as modern bourgeois society emerged from monarchy. According to chaos theory, the nonlinear dynamics of living organisms allow for the emergence of new orders of complexity, when a system reaches a high level of instability. As the mono-cultural, technocratic approach of post-industrial capitalism crumbles, a new worldview — a new way of being — is crystallizing.

KEEP READING ON THE MEDIUM

Declaration of Civil Society Organizations and Academic Attendees of the “4 per 1000 Initiative: Soil for Food Security and Climate” Presentation held on April 18, 2016 in the Offices of SAGARPA

/by

[ English | Español ]

Declaration of Civil Society Organizations and Academic Attendees of the “4 per 1000 Initiative: Soil for Food Security and Climate” Presentation held on April 18, 2016 in the Offices of SAGARPA

To:

Mely Romero, Subsecretary of Rural Development
Maryse Bossiere, French Ambassador to Mexico
Raúl Urteaga, General Coordinator of SAGARPA International Affairs.
Roxana Aguirre, General Director of Rural Development Capacity Building and Promotion

Members and representatives of civil society organizations and the scientific community that participated in the aforementioned event applaud the April 18th announcement of the 4 per1000 initiative promoted by the French government and endorsed by the Mexican government last December at the COP 21 on climate change in Paris. The April 18th event provided an opportunity to appreciate the significance of the issues involved, the serious state of land degradation in Mexico and some of the research projects and community experiences developed for the regeneration of, and the sequestration of carbon by, the soil.

We consider this issue fundamental in defending food sovereignty and security, and therefore consider essential the immediate organization and promotion of coordinated and transparent actions and public policies promoting regenerative practices in Mexico that will guarantee small producers’ basic rights, ensure the return of carbon to the soil, increase soil fertility, restore Mexican land and contribute to a safe, healthy, and high quality food system. These actions must begin with the revision and reinforcement of current programs, regulatory and institutional development, increased institutional commitment, and advances in current research and must not remain a temporary push with no prospects or capacity for generating the necessary changes to reverse the vicious cycle we are currently facing.

It is evident that the current climate crisis affecting the planet, and specifically vulnerable countries such as Mexico, requires immediate, committed and consistent responses, coordinated among governments, civil society, scientists and above all, farmers. Now is the time to work together to promote successful on the ground initiatives that have been developed to preserve soil and seeds, and that have a track record of effectiveness in resolving fundamental  agricultural issues.

According to Olivier de Schutter, the former United Nations Special Rapporteur on the right to food, 10% of the the country’s richest farmers received 80% of the Ingreso Objetivo (government subsidy) in 2005 while the bottom 10% of the country’s poorest farmers only received 0.1%..  It is alarming that in a country where 80% of farmers own less than 5 hectares of land, that rural loans are concentrated among the nation’s richest farmers, particularly when small-scale agriculture provides 40% of the food that we consume and could contribute to healthy and regenerative production through regenerative practices.

The Mexican government has demonstrated complete inconsistency and lack of coordination in regards to the international agreements that it has signed to combat climate change and its internal policy which favors and promotes an agroindustrial model based in agrotoxins and transgenics that is increasingly damaging people’s health and seriously deteriorating ecosystems, above all water and soil, elements vital to our very survival.

In order to reaffirm commitments made by the Mexican government, we ask that Lic. Raúl Urteaga, in his role as co-organizer of the event, call on the appropriate departments of SAGARPA as well as other public institutions that should have participated in the event as signers of the Paris agreement – CONAFOR, INECC, CONAGUA and the President of the Republic – to attend a working meeting with civil society organizations and academic groups interested in influencing and monitoring the actions necessary for the advancement of what was discussed during the April 18th event and ensure the fulfillment of the 4X1000 commitment. To this end, we propose creating a roadmap that contains goals for the next four years with a detailed diagnosis of the current state of Mexican soil and agricultural production, drawing from existing research, as well as a work plan with activities, responsible parties, dates, economic and human resources, and criteria and indicators for measuring success, with the objective of advancing regenerative practices that will sequester carbon back into the earth.

We therefore ask that SAGARPA propose various dates for a meeting to establish collaboration and work methods. Such an event must bring together the scientific, rural, indigenous and social communities that are supporting and/or developing regenerative practices that prohibit the use of genetically modified organisms and toxic substances with relevant public institutions promoting policies that either positively or negatively impact the 4X1000 initiative. Among these, we consider the participation of the following institutions fundamental: the coordinators of SAGARPA’s agriculture and livestock departments, the productivity director of SHCP, SEDATU, SEDESOL, SEMARNAT, CONABIO, INECC, COFEPRIS, SE, SENER, CONAFOR, CONANP, CDI, INMUJERES, development banks, and any other public entities working in rural development. Additionally, academic groups such as the Union of Scientists Committed to Society (UCCS), the Autonomous University of Chapingo (UACH) and other civil society groups must be present in order to develop a solid platform that will facilitate and supervise soil regeneration efforts that are crucial to avoiding an even greater crisis than the one we are currently suffering.

ANEC México
Álvaro Urreta, Coordinador de PROMESAN
Andrea Rodríguez Osuna, Abogada Senior Asociación Interamericana para la Defensa del Ambiente – AIDA
Dra. Christina Siebe, UNAM
Cooperativa de Consumo Zacahuizco
El Poder del Consumidor
Fernando Bejarano, Red de Acción sobre Plaguicidas y Alternativas en México
Fian México
Dr. Fernando Paz, Programa Mexicano del Carbono
Fundación Filobatrista para el desarrollo de la participación comunitaria AC
Fundar, Centro de Análisis e Investigación
Dr. Gonzalo Chapela, Coordinador de políticas públicas de la Red Mexicana contra la Desertificación RIOD – México
Greenpeace México
Dr. Héctor Robles, Miembro de la campaña Valor al Campesino
Dra. Helena Cotler, UNAM
Henry Miller, El Maíz Más Pequeño AC
Dr. Jorge Etchevers, Colegio de Postgraduados
Dr. Luis Zambrano, UNAM
Organic Consumers Association México
Red Mexicana por la Agricultura Familiar y Campesina
Regeneration International
Semillas de Vida AC
Dra. Silke Cram, UNAM
The Hunger Project México
Vía Orgánica AC
Yosu Rodríguez, Investigador Asociado, Centro Geo

UCSC study shows how urchin-loving otters can help fight global warming

/by

Author: Guy Lasnier

Can an abundance of sea otters help reverse a principal cause of global warming?

A new study by two UC Santa Cruz researchers suggest that a thriving sea otter population that keeps sea urchins in check will in turn allow kelp forests to prosper. The spreading kelp can absorb as much as 12 times the amount of CO2 from the atmosphere than if it were subject to ravenous sea urchins, the study finds.

The theory is outlined in a paper released online today (September 7, 2012) in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment by lead authors UC Santa Cruz professors Chris Wilmers and James Estes.

“It is significant because it shows that animals can have a big influence on the carbon cycle,” said Wilmers, associate professor of environmental studies.

Wilmers, Estes, a professor of ecology and evolutionary biology, and their co-authors, combined 40 years of data on otters and kelp bloom from Vancouver Island to the western edge of Alaska’s Aleutian Islands. They found that otters “undoubtedly have a strong influence” on the cycle of CO2 storage.

Comparing kelp density with otters and kelp density without otters, they found that “sea otters have a positive indirect effect on kelp biomass by preying on sea urchins, a kelp grazer.” When otters are around, sea urchins hide in crevices and eat kelp scraps. With no otters around, sea urchins graze voraciously on living kelp.

Kelp is particularly efficient at sequestering CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has increased 40 percent since the beginning of the industrial revolution, causing global temperatures to rise, the authors write.

KEEP READING ON UCSC NEWSCENTER

Carbon Farming – Agriculture’s Answer to Climate Change?

/by

On April 12, the Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E) announced a new funding opportunity aimed at increasing the carbon storage potential of U.S. agricultural soils.  Land-use, which includes agriculture, is responsible for 25 percent of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. While reducing fossil energy use is key to limiting warming to the internationally agreed less than 2 degrees Celsius, it will be impossible to meet climate targets if emissions associated with land-use are not also addressed. At the same time, modern agricultural practices have severely depleted the natural reserve of soil carbon; however addressing soil carbon can reduce emissions associated with agriculture and store additional carbon in the soil.  This article explores both low- and high-tech approaches to “carbon farming” and the political and social appetite to use agriculture as a means to address climate change.

The ARPA-E initiative — Rhizosphere Observations Optimizing Terrestrial Sequestration (or ROOTS), will use modern breeding and genomic tools to create crops that can help accelerate soil carbon storage. The agency expects to invest a total of $30 million in 8 to 12 projects that “modify, through targeted breeding and plant selection, crop plants to produce more roots, deeper in the soil profile,” which will in turn accelerate soil’s carbon storing abilities.  Through the ROOTS initiative, ARPA-E sets an ambitious target of a 50 percent increase in the carbon storage of soils, a 50 percent decrease in nitrogen emissions from conventional agriculture, and a 25 percent increase in water productivity. The net result would be a 10 percent reduction of total greenhouse gas emissions in the United States while also boosting the climate resilience of the agriculture sector.

ROOTS will fund projects that will advance data collection, modelling of the root-soil interaction and creation of new plant characteristics that could enable greater soil carbon storage.  ARPA-E estimates that 87 percent of current U.S. cropland could benefit from these as-of-yet developed carbon storing traits and could accelerate the carbon storage potential of U.S. soils.

ARPA-E is taking a high-tech approach to a long-understood problem – balancing soil carbon and agricultural productivity.  Modern agricultural practices, which have enabled ever higher agricultural yields and, therefore, lowered food prices and decreased food insecurity, have also reduced the soil’s carbon level. Carbon in soil is important because it helps store water, nutrients and regulate soil temperature. Increasing the amount of soil carbon can help address drought, water quality issues, nutrient management and climate resiliency – all thorny subjects in the agricultural world today.  Soil quality will also be key in addressing food security, as increasing soil carbon also translates to enhanced food production with potentially reduced inputs.

Through more traditional farming methods, or “back to basics” if you will, farmers, the USDA’s Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), grower’s groups and others have been exploring the potential of conservation and other measures such as cover crops, no-till and the use of biochar, which not only decrease the amount of fossil inputs on the farm but also increase the soil’s ability to store carbon.  Just one example can be found on Dave Brandt’s Ohio wheat, corn and soy farm, where he hasn’t tilled the soil since 1972.  Every winter, he plants over 10 varieties of cover crops, providing continuous living cover over the soil – a key ingredient in not only building soil carbon but preserving water holding capacity of the soil and maintaining water quality. Independent scientists have estimated that Brandt has increased the carbon content of his soils an astounding 61 percent in the past 35 years, with his corn yields increasing by up to 44 percent.  Brandt and other farmers are proving that it’s possible to pair conservation with productivity.

KEEP READING ON EESI

4 per 1000 – Soils for Food Security and Climate

/by

Author: Niel Ritchie

Main Street Project’s poultry-based regenerative agriculture system was featured at an April 18 conference to discuss the 4 per 1000 Initiative: “Soils for Food Security and Climate” in Mexico City. The meeting was hosted by SAGARPA (The Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock, Rural Development, Fisheries and Food of Mexico), Regeneration International, and the Embassy of France in Mexico.

Chief Strategy Officer Reginaldo Haslett Marroquin presented an overview of our system and described our research work in Mexico, highlighting our partnership with Via Organica to establish a working model of our poultry-based system on its farm in San Miguel De Allende in the state of Guanajuato.

Regi challenged the group to consider Mexico’s potential to meet its targets for increased carbon sequestration by helping millions of existing small farms (under 5 hectares) transition to poultry-centered regenerative systems. Not only would a regenerative poultry system deliver on Mexico’s commitment for carbon sequestration under the 4 per 1000 Initiative, it would also improve the dire social and economic conditions that afflict over 2.9 million small farmers in the country.

At the end of the day, it’s the economic stability of farmers and their ability to be part of a new regenerative system that are the keys to building better soils, providing food security, and capturing and keeping carbon in the ground. Our triple-bottom line of social, ecological and economic sustainability begins with people, too often an afterthought in addressing environmental damage. Redressing social equity remains the most effective and ultimately the most comprehensive entry point towards reversing climate change.

Farmers are Capitalizing on Carbon Sequestration: How Much is Your Carbon-Rich Soil Worth?

/by

Author: Brian Barth

Carbon farming—a catch-all phrase to describe the cultivation techniques that take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere (where it causes global warming) and convert it into carbon-based compounds in the soil that aid plant growth—has long been touted as a way to enlist farmers in the fight against climate change. Thanks to the growing market for carbon sequestration, farmers could soon stand to profit from such good deeds.

Environmentally-minded farmers are well aware that building up soil carbon is one key to achieving high yields without chemical inputs. It’s through the expansion of global carbon markets, however, where polluting corporations purchase “carbon credits” to offset their carbon emissions, that farmers are starting to get paid for adopting these practices.

When these polluters purchase carbon credits, the money goes to another company, organization, or project that has prevented an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases (GHGs) from entering the atmosphere (which can include a farmer). The transaction is mitigated by a broker, called a carbon registry. In the past, wind farms, solar panel facilities, and reforestation projects were among the most common recipients of carbon credits, but farm-based carbon credits are becoming more widely available. Notably, Australia, Alberta, Kenya, and California now have active programs to reward on-farm carbon sequestration.

Measuring the actual amount of carbon sequestered in soil and plants is a costly and inexact science, which is one reason that farm-based approaches haven’t been widely accepted by carbon credit programs yet. (It’s much easier to quantify reduced carbon emissions with things like solar power.) Rather than measuring the carbon sequestered on each farm, carbon credit programs rely on the average carbon sequestration ability of particular practices (like adding organic matter to the soil, planting cover crops, and reducing soil disturbance) that have been tested over time and scientifically verified. The bottom line is that farmers aren’t expected to calculate their own soil carbon levels—it’ll be inferred by the credit-granting organization based on their farming practices.

To help farmers get an idea of their current climate impacts and prospects for earning carbon credits, however, the USDA now has a free web-based tool called COMET-Farm, which provides an approximate carbon footprint based on user-supplied data and allows farmers to apply different land management scenarios to see which has the greatest carbon sequestering ability.

So how much might a farmer make for their soil carbon? Not much, at least not yet.

Here is how it works: Land-based carbon sequestration is measured in metric tons per hectare (2.5 acres); one metric ton earns one carbon credit, making the math easy. In California—the only state in the US with a full-fledged cap-and-trade program—the current value of a carbon credit is around $12 to $13. (Farmers in other states, by the way, are eligible to earn credits through the California carbon market.) Alberta, which has the most robust carbon market in Canada and rewards several agricultural practices with carbon credits, raised the price of carbon credits from $15 to $20 on January 1, 2016; in 2017, the price will go up to $30 per credit.

KEEP READING ON MODERN FARMER

Interview: Researcher, Author Eric Toensmeier Explores Practical, Effective Carbon Farming Strategies

/by

While this interview was being prepared a story surfaced on public radio about a couple of enterprising Americans who are taking advantage of changing policy to open a factory in Cuba. Their product? Tractors! The whole idea, the story helpfully explained, was to introduce “21st century farming” to the beleaguered island. By making it easier to tear up the soil. Clearly there is some distance to go before an accurate idea of 21st century farming penetrates the mainstream. It will take people like Eric Toensmeier. His new book, The Carbon Farming Solution, carries enough heft, range and detail to clear away forests of confusion. If the notion of leaving carbon in the soil is going to take its place next to that of leaving oil in the ground, this one-volume encyclopedia on the subject is exactly the kind of deeply informed work that’s required. Reached at his home in western Massachusetts, Toensmeier was exhilarated over finishing a project years in the making, and more than happy to talk about it.

This interview appears in the May 2016 issue of Acres U.S.A.

ACRES U.S.A. Carbon farming was unknown even a few years ago, and it is still obscure for many people who are otherwise well-informed. Could you establish the basic premise for us?

ERIC TOENSMEIER. Sure. Excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is there because of burning fossil fuels and also because of the degradation of land. Whether it’s forests being cleared or prairie being plowed or a badly grazed pasture, when those ecosystems are degraded, carbon that was stored in soil and in biomass bonds with oxygen and heads up into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. There are practices that can bring it back. They all use photosynthesis, which takes carbon dioxide out of the air and turns it into sugars in the plant; then those sugars are converted into various other things such as lignins. Some of them end up in the plant itself, and some of them end up in the soil. Some get there quickly through root exudates, and some end up in the soil more slowly through decomposition. Some of them are off-gassed to go back up into the atmosphere. We can pull down a bunch of that excess atmospheric carbon and store it in the soil and in perennial biomass. The amount that is possible is quite hopeful and could be just about enough to do the job if it’s coupled with a drastic reduction in emissions. It’s not enough to do the job on its own.

ACRES U.S.A. If carbon storage via agriculture is essential to an overall climate strategy, how do you lay it out to a skeptic who doesn’t believe farms can play a big part?

TOENSMEIER. That’s a really important question. We’re not going to stop climate change, but we can’t get it to a manageable level without farmers, and here’s why. Even if we stopped all emissions today — all deforestation, all fossil fuel burning — there’s already too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That’s partly because carbon dioxide takes a couple decades to kick in. We’re already in for a lot more warming than we can tell from what we’ve emitted. We can pull it back down, and to do that we have to stop emissions, but we also have to sequester carbon. Neither one works on its own. There’s not enough land available for reforestation to do all the sequestration we need with land leftover for agriculture. So agriculture itself has to be part of the solution. What’s cool is that almost all of these agricultural solutions weren’t invented for climate change mitigation — they were invented because they make farms work better. They make farms more resilient. They make farms more productive. They’re good ideas anyway! There are plenty of tradeoffs and drawbacks, but as far as I can see it’s quite a good news story.

KEEP READING IN ECO FARMING DAILY BY ACRES U.S.A. MAGAZINE

The Soil Solution: Regenerative Farming

/by

Author: Eli Wallace

When scientists and environmentalists talk climate change, doom and gloom is often the main topic. Scientific American reported last spring that the earth was essentially at or close to the “point of no return,” in terms of carbon emissions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated in 2009 that unless drastic action was taken between 2015 and 2020, it would be too late to save the ice caps, let alone polar bears, coastal infrastructure and the temperate, predictable weather patterns we know and love.

So it’s not every day you hear an environmentalist declare we can actually reverse global warming. Steven Hoffman, managing director of the Boulder-based environmental marketing group Compass Natural and an avid environmentalist with ties to Regeneration International, visited the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21 Global Climate Summit) in Paris this year, where the reversal of global warming through soil regeneration was a major focus.

“People keep talking about reducing carbon emissions and getting to carbon neutral, but that’s not enough anymore,” Hoffman says. “We’re already heating, so we need to take the excess from the atmosphere. A lot of people want to make new technology that can help solve our previous technology problems.”

Hoffman says the conversation around carbon emissions usually centers on personal consumption and oil use, even though 50 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions comes from agriculture.

“Yes, we need to increase renewable energy, but that’s only half the equation. All of the carbon in the air used to be in the ground, and industrial-scale agriculture is responsible. If you ignore that, you’re missing the practical, easily applied solution that we can address immediately.”

That solution, regenerative farming, focuses on increasing organic matter in the soil, which would up the amount of carbon in the soil. “We could sequester more than 100 percent of current annual CO2 emissions with a switch to widely available and inexpensive organic-management practices,” reported the white paper “Regenerative Organic Agriculture and Climate Change,” published by Rodale Institute, a nonprofit agricultural research group.

“Organic farming nurtures the living soil,” Hoffman explains. “Plants draw carbon from the air to their roots, where it’s sequestered in soil and used by microbes, worms and other organisms.”

KEEP READING IN THE BOULDER COUNTY HOME & GARDEN

 

Smallholder farmers and the Paris Agreement

/by

As 60 million people around the world face severe hunger because of El Niño and millions more because of climate change, world leaders will meet in New York this week to sign the Paris Agreement on Earth Day.

This historic pact, formed during the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference at the 21st session of the Conference of the Parties (COP21), is the first universal climate agreement of its kind.

On 22 April, more than 130 countries are planning to sign and implement the Paris Agreement, including the United States, China, and numerous countries in Africa and the European Union.

These efforts come at a critical time as projections show climate change is only going to become more problematic.

[…]

The role of agriculture

According to Laganda, incorporating agriculture into climate discussions has always been a contentious issue.

“Agriculture on the one hand contributes to global warming, and on the other hand is suffering from its impacts,” Laganda said. “Plus, different countries have different agricultural strategies, with some being more carbon-intensive than others. This makes it difficult to have an over-arching agreement that works for everyone. Agriculture was always an ambivalent topic in these negotiations.”

The Paris Agreement overcomes this problem with the use of intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs). INDCs communicate to the international community the steps governments are taking to address climate change gas emissions within their own countries.

In order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, countries are reporting their intentions to reform their transportation systems and to increase their use of energy-efficient and renewable energy. A majority of these nations are talking about agriculture as well.

“Through the INDCs, the Paris Agreement manages to establish a link with agriculture which has been missing so far,” Laganda said. “Around 80 per cent of INDCs include agriculture, which means that many countries have now recognized that agriculture is part of the solution to global warming.”

KEEP READING ON IFAD

Climate Listening Project: We don’t want to just survive, we want to be successful

/by

This video featuring farmer Bob Quinn of Quinn Organic Farm and Kamut International is part of a the Cultivating Resilience Video Series.

About the Cultivating Resilience Video Series

In May 2015, Laura Lengnick teamed up with producer Dayna Reggero of the Climate Listening Project and film maker Andrea Desky of K23 Media to create a series of video shorts that teach about agricultural resilience through the adaptation stories of some of the farmers and ranchers featured in Laura’s new book, Resilient Agriculture. We released the first of six planned videos in the Cultivating Resilience series – the Southeast – in September 2015. We have started on the second video which will feature Resilient Agriculture farmers and ranchers in the Northern Great Plains region, but we have run out of funding. We are actively seeking financial support to continue the series. Can you help?

WATCH MORE VIDEOS BY THE CLIMATE LISTENING PROJECT