Tag Archive for: Climate Change

Carbon Sequestration Potential on Agricultural Lands: A Review of Current Science and Available Practices

Author Daniel Kane:

Recent reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that even if substantial reductions in anthropogenic carbon emissions are achieved in the near future, efforts to sequester previously emitted carbon will be necessary to ensure safe levels of atmospheric carbon and to mitigate climate change (Smith et al. 2014). Research on sequestration has focused primarily on Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and reforestation with less attention to the role of soils as carbon sinks. Recent news reports of melting glaciers and ice sheets coupled with a decade of record-breaking heat underscores the importance of aggressive exploration of all possible sequestration strategies.

Soils have the potential to sequester carbon from the atmosphere with proper management. Based on global estimates of historic carbon stocks and projections of rising emissions, soil’s usefulness as a carbon sink and drawdown solution appear essential (Lal, 2004, 2008). Since over one third of arable land is in agriculture globally (World Bank, 2015a), finding ways to increase soil carbon in agricultural systems will be a major component of using soils as a sink. A number of agricultural management strategies appear to sequester soil carbon by increasing carbon inputs to the soil and enhancing various soil processes that protect carbon from microbial turnover. Uncertainties about the extent and permanence of carbon sequestration in these systems do still remain, but existing evidence is sufficient to warrant a greater global focus on agricultural soils as a potential climate stability wedge and drawdown solution. Furthermore, the ancillary benefits of increasing soil carbon, including improvements to soil structure, fertility, and water-holding capacity, outweigh potential costs. In this paper, we’ll discuss the basics of soil carbon, how it can be sequestered, management strategies that appear to show promise, and the debate about the potential of agricultural soils to be a climate stability wedge.

KEEP READING ON NATIONAL SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE COALITION

Cop 22 – Briefing by Stephane Le Foll French Minister of Agriculture

Authors: Ruby Bird & Yasmina Beddou 

On October 21, 2016 was held an informal Briefing with some journalists to explain and pursue the French Plan toward MARRAKECH (Morocco) for the COP 22 on 7-18 November 2016. It will be the 22nd session of the Conference of the Parties. One of the crucial issues debated was the Launch of the 4 per 1000 initiative by France on Tuesday 1st December 2015 during COP 21. Stéphane Le Foll, French Minister for Agriculture, AgriFood and Forestry; the Australian, German, New Zealand and Uruguayan Ministers for Agriculture; Graziano da Silva, General Secretary of the FAO and M. Mayaki, General Secretary of NEPAD were in attendance.
The 4 per 1000 initiative aims to generate growth in the rate of soil carbon in the form of organic matter of 0.4% per year in the coming decades. This rate of growth would make it possible to compensate for anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. It would concern agricultural soils (growth objective of 1.4 Gt of carbon per year), forests (1.3 Gt per year) and soils affected by salinization or desertification (0.5 to 1.4 Gt per year).
Growth in the organic matter of soils would make it possible to improve the resilience of agriculture and its adaptation to climate change (less sensitivity to erosion, improvement of water retention capacity, etc.), agricultural yield and, in fine, food safety.
Approximately thirty countries signed the initiative, including the majority of European Union countries, Australia, China, Costa Rica, Ethiopa, Indonesia, Mexico, Niger, New Zealand, Turkey and Uruguay. As did ECOWAS, various research centres (including INRA, IRD and CIRAD) and various non-governmental organisations, foundations and agricultural organisations.
KEEP READING ON UNITED STATES PRESS AGENCY

Doubts About the Promised Bounty of Genetically Modified Crops

Author: Danny Hakim , 2016

The controversy over genetically modified crops has long focused on largely unsubstantiated fears that they are unsafe to eat.

But an extensive examination by The New York Times indicates that the debate has missed a more basic problem — genetic modification in the United States and Canada has not accelerated increases in crop yields or led to an overall reduction in the use of chemical pesticides.

The promise of genetic modification was twofold: By making crops immune to the effects of weedkillers and inherently resistant to many pests, they would grow so robustly that they would become indispensable to feeding the world’s growing population, while also requiring fewer applications of sprayed pesticides.

Twenty years ago, Europe largely rejected genetic modification at the same time the United States and Canada were embracing it. Comparing results on the two continents, using independent data as well as academic and industry research, shows how the technology has fallen short of the promise.

An analysis by The Times using United Nations data showed that the United States and Canada have gained no discernible advantage in yields — food per acre — when measured against Western Europe, a region with comparably modernized agricultural producers like France and Germany. Also, a recent National Academy of Sciences report found that “there was little evidence” that the introduction of genetically modified crops in the United States had led to yield gains beyond those seen in conventional crops.

At the same time, herbicide use has increased in the United States, even as major crops like corn, soybeans and cotton have been converted to modified varieties. And the United States has fallen behind Europe’s biggest producer, France, in reducing the overall use of pesticides, which includes both herbicides and insecticides.

One measure, contained in data from the United States Geological Survey, shows the stark difference in the use of pesticides. Since genetically modified crops were introduced in the United States two decades ago for crops like corn, cotton and soybeans, the use of toxins that kill insects and fungi has fallen by a third, but the spraying of herbicides, which are used in much higher volumes, has risen by 21 percent.

By contrast, in France, use of insecticides and fungicides has fallen by a far greater percentage — 65 percent — and herbicide use has decreased as well, by 36 percent.

Profound differences over genetic engineering have split Americans and Europeans for decades. Although American protesters as far back as 1987 pulled up prototype potato plants, European anger at the idea of fooling with nature has been far more sustained. In the last few years, the March Against Monsanto has drawn thousands of protesters in cities like Paris and Basel, Switzerland, and opposition to G.M. foods is a foundation of the Green political movement. Still, Europeans eat those foods when they buy imports from the United States and elsewhere.

KEEP READING ON THE NEW YORK TIMES 

Soil Carbon Can’t Fix Climate Change by Itself—but It Needs to Be Part of the Solution

Author: Marcia Delonge  26, 2016

A rigorous study just published in the prestigious journal Science argues that soil alone cannot be can be counted on to save us from climate change. Yet the stark analysis does not undermine the importance of better understanding, protecting, and building carbon in soils (“carbon farming”). In fact, the findings reinforce the need for soil carbon science and action to remain priorities, especially when it comes to agriculture.

The study in a nutshell:  Scientists from the University of California used 1-meter (3.28 ft) deep soil samples from 157 places around the world, which were analyzed with sophisticated carbon dating methods to improve the way that soil carbon is represented in some of the best Earth System Models. They found that models may have been overestimating how much carbon would likely be stored in soils under climate change, particularly in response to the so-called “CO2 fertilization effect” (the effect of higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations on fostering plant growth). The findings suggested that the size of the resulting soil carbon “sink” that will be available soon enough to effectively mitigate climate change is lower than previously estimated (by anywhere from 5.9% to 87%). They conclude that models need to represent soil carbon more accurately when simulating climate change scenarios, and emphasized the importance of emissions reduction strategies.

So what does this mean?

If you’re wondering about the implications of the study for soil carbon, climate change, and agriculture, here’s what you need to know:

  • As my colleagues have written, we are well beyond the stage where we can choose between either reducing emissions or increasing carbon sequestration. We need to act on both, and quickly.
  • To review the basics, there is a lot of carbon in the atmosphere (as CO2, the main climate change culprit today), but there is far more in soils. If you have been following “carbon farming”, you know that this feature of the carbon cycle is the basis for much enthusiasm. Since plants suck up CO2 and return carbon to the soil, there is constant movement between these two “pools.” Because the soil pool is large, small changes in soil carbon can mean relatively big changes in atmospheric carbon. This is great if soil carbon is increasing, but worrisome otherwise. Either way, understanding soil carbon is one of the keys to the climate change solution.
KEEP READING ON UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS 

Looking to Nature in the Search for Global Soil Solutions

Author: Zoe Loftus-Farren 25, 2016

Soil is the unsung-hero of our food system. We depend on it to grow the food we put in our bodies, yet we treat it poorly, compacting it with tractors, depleting it of nutrients, and filling it with chemicals. The Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that globally, 25 percent of soil is degraded. Team BioNurse, a project of the Ceres Regional Center for Fruit and Vegetable Innovation in Chile, has come up with a creative way to help combat this degradation, one that turns to nature for inspiration.

An interdisciplinary team of seven that includes industrial designers, architects, and agronomists, Team BioNurse has designed a soil restoration mechanism that mimics the Yareta plant, a so-called “nurse” plant found in the harsh environment of the Andes. The resilient Yareta provides shelter for seedlings of other plants, protecting them from the elements and facilitating their establishment in the extreme mountain landscape. In doing so, this hardy plant paves the way for the succession of other, more delicate species.

Team BioNurse designed a “BioPatch” that works the same way. Made of corn stalks and other biological materials, the BioPatch is planted with seedlings of plants that help restore soil health but which would struggle to grow in degraded soils. It nurtures these seedlings, providing them with the necessary nutrients and microbes to thrive under tough conditions, protecting them from wind and UV radiation, and directing water to their roots. The BioPatch is then placed on degraded agricultural fields, which, as BioNurse Team member Camilia Hernández points out, can also be “very harsh environments.” As the seedlings take root, they help amend the underlying soil.

KEEP READING ON EARTH ISLAND JOURNAL

Coffee and Climate Change: In Brazil, a Disaster Is Brewing

Author: Lulu Garcia-Navarro | Published: October 12, 2016

Coffee lovers, alert! A new report says that the world’s coffee supply may be in danger owing to climate change. In the world’s biggest coffee-producing nation, Brazil, the effects of warming temperatures are already being felt in some communities.

You can see the effects in places like Naygney Assu’s farm, tucked on a quiet hillside in Espirito Santo state in eastern Brazil. Walking over his coffee field is a noisy experience, because it’s desiccated. The leaves from the plants are curled up all over the floor, in rust-colored piles. The plants themselves are completely denuded.

“We’ve had no rain since last December,” Assu tells me in Portuguese, “and my well dried up. There was nothing we can do, except wait for rain.”

But the rain doesn’t come.

In fact, it’s been three years of drought here in Sao Gabriel da Palha. This region is part of Brazil’s coffee belt. Farmers here have been growing robusta — a coffee bean used in espressos and instant coffee — since the 1950s. Assu says he doesn’t know what to do.

KEEP READING ON NPR

 

Why ‘climate-smart Agriculture’ Isn’t All It’s Cracked up to Be

Author: Teresa Anderson | Published on: October 17, 2014

There’s a new phrase in town. A growing number of governments, corporations and NGOs are using the term “climate-smart agriculture” to describe their activities. With climate change affecting farming worldwide, you might assume we should be celebrating this as a step in the right direction.

But many organisations in the food movement are wary of – or even opposed to – this concept. They share growing concerns that the term is being used to green-wash practices that are, in fact, damaging for the climate and for farming. Many are worried that the promotion of “climate-smart agriculture” could end up doing more harm than good.

At the United Nations secretary general’s climate summit in New York last month, heads of state such as President Barack Obama referred to the need for “climate-smart” crops to weather the challenges ahead. The Dutch prime minister, Mark Rutte, announced the launch of the new Global Alliance for Climate-Smart Agriculture, involving governments, corporations, research institutes and NGOs.

This was followed by announcements from McDonalds, which use 2% of the world’s beef, andWalmart, the world’s largest corporation, about their own “climate-smart” initiatives.

Proponents of “climate-smart agriculture” claim that their approaches aim to achieve a “triple win” of increasing food security, adaptation and mitigation. So far so good, right? Actually, no.

KEEP READING ON THE GUARDIAN

Solving Climate Change With Beer From Patagonia’s Food Startup

Authors: Bradford Wieners | Published on: October 3, 2016

Yvon Chouinard, the short, bluff, fatalistic founder of Patagonia, the company renowned for its pricey parkas, fuzzy fleeces, and exhortations to buy fewer of them, sits in a cafeteria-style Chinese restaurant in Jackson, Wyo. He scratches a clam from its shell, forks it into his mouth, chews, checks the time. “Oh, we’re fine,” he says, and Birgit Cameron, seated on his right, does her best to look reassured. A fairly recent addition to the Patagonia family, Cameron seems as eager to make a good impression this evening as Chouinard is indifferent to how he’s perceived. The two are expected in 10 minutes at the Center for the Arts in Jackson, where they’ll appear on stage together and introduce Unbroken Ground, a 26-minute film produced by Patagonia that highlights the suppliers of Patagonia Provisions, the three-year-old sister food company that Cameron heads. Depending on your level of cynicism, Unbroken Ground may strike you as a well-turned documentary about the ecologically enlightened suppliers behind the foods she sells, or perhaps as a slick marketing piece. Naturally, it’s both.

“It’s hard to get people fired up about how cotton is grown in Turkey,” Chouinard says, “but we’ve got to, because the way 99 percent of cotton is grown, it’s a disaster. And it’s the same with where most of our food comes from. So we use film because a lot of these little guys we’re working with don’t have the resources to make a movie. We do.”

At 77, Chouinard long ago stepped back from Patagonia’s day-to-day operations, but he and his wife, Malinda (also present, but not to be quoted), remain the owners and stewards of the brand. They mostly split their time between here, where their home faces the Teton Range, and Ventura, Calif., where Patagonia’s headquarters and their children and grandkids are. Both published books in the last two months: Yvon, an updated edition of his memoir-cum-management treatise, Let My People Go Surfing; Malinda, with co-author Jennifer Ridgeway,Family Business: Innovative On-Site Child Care Since 1983, a monograph promoting kindergartens at corporate offices.

KEEP READING ON BLOOMBERG

Pope Francis’ Message for World Food Day

Published: October 14, 2016

On the occasion of the World Food Day, this Sunday Oct. 16, which this year has as theme: “The Climate Is Changing,” Pope Francis sent to the Director General of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the following Vatican-provided message:

* * *

To Professor José Graziano da Silva
Director General of the FAO

Illustrious Sir,

1. The fact that the FAO has chosen to devote today’s World Food Day to the theme “Climate is changing. Food and agriculture must too”, leads us to consider the struggle against hunger as an even more difficult objective to attain in the presence of a complex phenomenon such as climate change. With regard to facing the challenges that nature poses to man, and that man poses to nature (cf. Enc. Laudato si’, 25), I would like to submit some reflections to the consideration of the FAO, its Member States and those who participate in its activity.

What is the cause of the current climate change? We must question our individual and collective responsibilities, without resorting to the facile sophistry that hides behind statistical data or conflicting predictions. This does not mean abandoning the scientific data we need more than ever, but rather going beyond merely interpreting the phenomenon or recording its many effects.

Our condition as people who are necessarily in relation to one another, and our responsibility as the guardians of creation and its order, require us to retrace the causes of the current changes and to go to their root. First and foremost, we must admit that the many negative effects on the climate derive from the daily behaviour of people, communities, populations and States. If we are aware of this, a mere evaluation in ethical and moral terms is not sufficient. It is necessary to act politically and therefore to make the necessary decisions, to discourage or promote certain behaviours and lifestyles, for the sake of the new generations and those to come. Only in this way can we preserve the planet.

The responses to be put into effect must be suitably planned, and cannot be the fruit of emotion or fleeting motives. It is important to plan them. In this task, an essential role is played by the institutions called upon to work together, inasmuch as the action of individuals, while necessary, becomes effective only if framed in a network made up of people, public and private bodies, and national and international apparatuses. This network, however, cannot remain anonymous; this network is fraternity, and must act on the basis of its fundamental solidarity.

2. Those who are engaged in work in the fields, in farming, in small-scale fishing, or in the forests, or those who live in rural areas in direct contact with the effects of climate change, are aware that if the climate changes, their life changes too. Their daily lives are affected by difficult or at times dramatic situations, the future becomes increasingly uncertain and in this way the thought of abandoning homes and loved ones begins to arise. There is a prevalent sense of abandonment, the feeling of being abandoned by institutions, deprived of possible technical contributions or even of just consideration on the part of all those of us who benefit from their work.

From the wisdom of rural communities we can learn a style of life that can help defend us from the logic of consumerism and production at any cost, a logic that, cloaked in good justifications, such as the increasing population, is in reality aimed solely at the increase of profit. In the sector in which the FAO works, there is a growing number of people who believe they are omnipotent, or able to ignore the cycles of the seasons and to improperly modify the various animal and plant species, leading to the loss of variety that, if it exists in nature, has and must have its role. Producing qualities that may give excellent results in the laboratory may be advantageous for some, but have ruinous effects for others. And the principle of caution is not enough, as very often it is limited to not allowing something to be done, whereas there is a need to act in a balanced and honest way. Genetic selection of a quality of plant may produce impressive results in terms of yield, but have we considered the terrain that loses its productive capacity, farmers who no longer have pasture for their livestock, and water resources that become unusable? And above all, do we ask if and to what extent we contribute to altering the climate?

KEEP READING ON ZENIT

 

Hope for the Future: How Farmers Can Reverse Climate Change

Author: Rachel Kastner | Published on: July 13, 2016

This is an edited and revised transcript of the author’s presentation to the Center for Global Justice, San Miguel de Allende, Mexico, in August 2014.

Thank you to the Center for Global Justice for hosting us today. My passion and life’s work is regenerative agriculture and I am here today to share with you a message of hope: how farmers can reverse global climate change. I’ve been learning about and working with organic agriculture over the past seven years. I was born and raised in rural Oklahoma and moved to San Miguel de Allende, Mexico four years ago. I studied International Area Studies at the University of Oklahoma. After graduating from university, I spent a year working in rural South Africa where I first experienced agriculture being used as an avenue for social and environmental change. Since that time, about seven years ago, I’ve dedicated myself to studying and employing organic and regenerative agriculture. It’s been a learning experience for me, and I’m fortunate enough to be able to partner and work with a local organization here in San Miguel, called Vía Orgánica. Most of you probably know Vía Orgánica as a local store and restaurant in Centro San Miguel. Via Organica’s mission is education and supporting the organic movement here in Mexico. Later on I’ll be sharing a little bit more about what we do on an educational level in San Miguel.

I am here to share with you how regenerative organic agriculture is a game-changing solution for global climate change. Regenerative agriculture, modeled after natural systems, has the potential to reverse climate change by drawing billions of tons of carbon out the atmosphere, and locking it down to the soil, where a lot of it came from, and where it belongs.

Most of us know the gloom and doom story of the industrial food system. We know it as the culprit responsible for deforestation, environmental degradation, soil loss, pollution of our waterways, pollution of our food, large companies destroying local food markets and in the end making our environment, animals, farmers and consumers sick. What many people may not know is how greatly our global food system is contributing to annual greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change. The entire global food sector is responsible for over half of global greenhouse gas emissions. Agricultural food production accounts for 11%-15% of all greenhouse gas emissions. Land-use changes and deforestation – lands and fields being cleared, forests being cut down and native prairies being tilled to produce food –contribute 15%-18% annually. Processing and transportation contribute of food contribute 15%-20% and 3% to 4% of emissions are due to the waste stream produced by the global food system.

When talking about climate and the food system, agriculture is often seen as a necessary enemy. We know industrial agriculture creates negative effects on our environment and also on consumers’ health, yet it’s often not openly recognized and talked about as being a major contributor to climate change. There are a few reasons the harm caused by the industrial agricultural system is not openly talked about. One is that the global industrial farming industry has bought many politicians, universities and global world leaders. And the second reason is the sense of fear, that we have to keep producing food this way in order to feed the world. If we look at the science and the research comparing conventional and organic agriculture’s productivity we see that organic systems produce equal to or more food than conventional systems and have far more benefits for the environment, farmers, consumers and food security. The industrial farming system is not necessary to feed the world. So, let’s talk about how agriculture can be a solution to climate change instead of the culprit.

We know that we have to stop emitting greenhouse gases, and at the same time we must reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. The reality is that these transitions are not happening fast enough. We must reduce the amount of carbon that’s currently in our atmosphere, and we have to do it very quickly. It is estimated greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are currently at a level of 400 parts per million. Largely, scientists have agreed that we need to reduce this number to 350 parts per million to avoid catastrophic climate change events.

So, how are we going to get this carbon out of the atmosphere? We’re going to do it by creating a global movement to regenerative, organic agricultural production systems; systems that remove the carbon causing global climate change from the atmosphere and return it to the soil where it belongs.

What is regenerative, organic agriculture? Organic agriculture can be defined as production systems that do not use synthetic chemicals, fertilizers, and genetically modified organisms. Organic is qualified by the absence of harmful substances. Regenerative agriculture goes a step further than organic standards and designs agriculturally productive systems that model natural ecosystems and regenerate their own nutrients. These regenerative agricultural methods, because of their ecological and biological focus, also regenerate degraded or depleted ecosystems into productive, stable, biologically diverse food production systems. In the words of a visionary farmer: regenerative organic agriculture is “Farming like the Earth matters.” Regenerative agriculture recognizes the important connections between plants, soil microorganisms and carbon in the atmosphere. This connection between plants, microorganisms and carbon is the key to how regenerative agriculture is a solution to climate change.

Plants through the process of photosynthesis draw carbon out of the atmosphere. A portion of this this carbon energy absorbed by the plant is used for aboveground plant growth and some of this carbon is respired, or exhaled, back into the atmosphere. Around 20% to 40% of the carbon absorbed by the plant is transferred into the soil as “liquid carbon” primarily in the form of sugars. The plants emit these sugars into the soil through their root systems. These sugars play an incredibly important role in the soil as they are food for the billions of soil microorganisms. As microorganisms in the soil feed on this carbon sugar they stabilize the carbon in the soil and create nutrients for the plants. The sugars released by plant roots also help improve soil structure, increasing its capacity to hold and filter water. As carbon moves from the atmosphere through plant roots and is then processed by microorganisms some of this carbon becomes stabilized and “locked” beneath the soil’s surface for years to come. The soil thus functions as a carbon sink. When we begin to recognize the earth’s soil as our largest available carbon sink we see that how we manage the Earth’s soil could lead us out of the climate crisis. Every green plant, tree and grass has the ability to pull carbon from the atmosphere and store it into the soil, long-term. The healthier the plants and soil biological communities are the more carbon is sequestered. This means large-scale carbon sequestration at our fingertips and what we need are agricultural systems that move this carbon underground.

We’ve known about carbon sequestration via plants for a many years. That’s why we’ve been talking about reforestation as one of the solutions to global climate change. As we learn more about how healthy plant and soil interactions can remove large amounts of carbon from the atmosphere we see this has huge implications for sequestering large amounts of carbon when applied not only in forest systems but in in agricultural systems including annual production and grazing systems.

In a short video by an organization called Kiss the Ground, which is a partner of Regeneration International, and also the Organic Consumers Association, we learn more about the relationship between soil and carbon sequestration. The video, The Soil Story, is a fantastic explanation of the soil carbon cycle. And it encapsulates the message of hope with regard to agriculture and climate change.

In the video we learn how the soil is a natural system that sequesters carbon. I want to talk about what that actually looks like in large scale farming systems, and also what rolling this movement out on a global scale looks like. It’s important to look at some of the numbers. The Earth’s soil currently holds 2,500 billion tons of carbon. The atmosphere holds 800 billion tons and plant and animal life hold 650 billion tons. Scientists estimate that, since the dawn of agriculture, we’ve released 50% to 70% of the original carbon stock in our soils up into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. The Earth’s soil is a massive carbon sink, and we have the potential of returning carbon back to the soil. After all humans released half of the soil carbon into the atmosphere. This is a half-empty carbon sink is readily available to us. When we compare soil carbon sequestration to other geo-engineering carbon sequestration techniques, we see that soil carbon sequestration is a more readily available, economic, and scalable, solution.

So how much carbon sequestration are we talking about? By measuring carbon sequestered in regenerative agricultural systems, it is estimated that regenerative agriculture could sequester 100% of current human greenhouse gas emissions, or more. According to researchers, if we put the Earth’s four-billion acres of crop lands and pastures, 14-billion acres of rangelands, and 10-billion acres of forests into regenerative agriculture and land management we could reduce our atmospheric carbon concentration to 350 parts per million in under five years. So we would be pulling 50 parts per million of carbon out of our atmosphere in under five years. This would be an ideal situation where the entire world would stop exactly what they’re doing, and turn over to regenerative agriculture.

By looking at this ideal situation, we can see the scale and importance of how much carbon could be sequestered through regenerative agriculture and land management. A third of the Earth’s surface is arable land and the majority is under agricultural production. The oceans are not available to absorb any more carbon; carbon is acidifying our oceans as it is. Our largest available natural resource for carbon sequestration is the soil. Farmers are already using carbon sequestering farming methods worldwide. The scientific and global communities are beginning to pay attention to the research that’s coming out of these systems. Regenerative agriculture systems not only are a solution to the problem of climate change, but also have a domino effect of beneficial changes for local communities, economies, and the environment.

Elements of Regenerative Agriculture

What do regenerative farming methods look like, and what are farmers using today on a large scale to do this kind of farming? One of the regenerative farming techniques used is no-till, or minimum till agriculture. Currently in the United States, 20% to 40% of all farms uses no-till agriculture. No-till agriculture uses tractors and implements to sow seed and harvest in a way that does not turn up or open the soil surface. This minimum soil disturbance releases very little if any, carbon that is stored in the soil as well as reduces soil erosion and increases soil organic material. The soil surface cover is maintained and soil structure is left intact. No-till systems have several beneficial effects. Because the soil is left intact carbon in the soil, in the form of organic material and microorganisms, does not become oxidized and is not released into the atmosphere. The soil structure that remains intact helps hold water in the soil making rainfall and irrigation more efficient. The microbial life that’s in the soil, instead of being oxidized and killed by tillage, remains alive in the soil, and forms beneficial relationships with plant roots, creating nutrients for crops and sequestering more carbon. With no-till agriculture the crop residue is left on the soil surface and acts as a mulch, conserving soil moisture. The roots from the crop decay and further feed microbial life in the soil increasing soil nutrition, structure and water infiltration.

As I was saying, up to 40% of agriculture in the United States uses the no-till approach. Why? This has primarily been put into place through natural resource and conservation agencies in the United States for the purpose of soil conservation. When a field is tilled and then rains come, a percentage of the topsoil washes off of the field, into lakes and rivers. Farmers are finding that their rain and irrigation go further when they leave the soil untilled. Many farmers have turned to no till because of drought.

In the past five years, the Midwest has seen severe droughts. Farmers have experienced that no-till systems dramatically improve the water-holding capacity of their soil. A disadvantage of the industrial agricultural system using a no-till agriculture is that it’s not organic. Non-organic no-till systems rely heavily on herbicides to remove weeds. If the soil is not being tilled you have to control weeds through other methods. In non-organic systems soils are drenched with herbicides, which then wash into local water systems, contaminating ground water, lakes and streams. In regenerative organic no-till systems other methods such as roller crimpers, cover crops and animals are used to manage weeds.

Another essential element of regenerative agriculture is that it recognizes the soil as a biologically active, living organism, and it acknowledges that these microorganisms are essential for carbon sequestration. No-till agriculture is one step in the right direction. However, if you apply large amounts of synthetic herbicides and chemicals to the soil it largely reduces soil microorganisms and therefore reduces carbon sequestration. Microorganisms in soils are killed off by synthetic inputs such as synthetic fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. The microbial life in the soil can’t coexist with these inputs. In order to have healthy microbiological ecosystems in the soil, we have to give them the proper environment in which to live, that is, an environment that does not use pesticides and herbicides.

Crop diversity and agroforestry constitute another method of regenerative agriculture. Photo 1 (above) demonstrates this method on a large scale. The farmer is Mark Shepard of Wisconsin. On his 106-acre regenerative agroforestry farm, Mark harvests many crops including, fruits, nuts, vegetables, grains, honey, pork and trees. Systems like this, as you can see, don’t look like corn farms in Iowa; they look more like natural systems.

One of the greatest public misconceptions is that, “Organic agriculture cannot feed the world.” We know through research that this is simply not true. The international community is really coming out and saying, “Organic agriculture can feed the world”. And in fact, these regenerative agricultural systems are more resilient, they provide better food security for local global communities, and it’s scalable.

We see Mark Shepherd applying large scale regenerative agriculture, and there are many other large-scale, regenerative farmers who are implementing designs like this throughout the world, including here in Mexico. These farmers understand natural biological systems and many of them are also very good business people, who understand how to make multiple businesses off of one farm. This approach is improving the environment, improving local communities’ economies, and it’s an essential way to move forward.

Perennial grasses and crops: when we have greater root systems, we have more sugars going down to the soil, we have higher micro-organism communities in the soil, and we have higher carbon sequestration. We must take care of our grasslands and rangelands to ensure they are not overgrazed, and that they’re not under-grazed. Grasslands need animals moving across them to properly fertilize them, stimulate plant growth and in return create more grass and larger root systems. The grasslands are an ecology depend on animals moving across them. The important aspect here is that the animals are properly managed in a way that restores grasslands instead of destroys them

The Land Institute in Salina, Kansas, is doing groundbreaking and tedious work to breed a perennial grain crops for human consumption. They have already successfully created one grain, called Kernza. Kernza is a perennial grain, meaning it doesn’t need to be cultivated, and produces a grain for human consumption. The Land Institute is making great strides to create more regenerative crops; although they’re still several years down the road from making Kernza an extremely palatably grain. They’re working on breeding more desirable qualities into the lines.

The planned rotational grazing of livestock for regenerative land management is essential for sequestering carbon on a large scale. Cattle and other livestock are often identified as the culprits behind land degradation. Land conservationists have for many years been trying to get cattle off of land in order to preserve it. What we’re seeing now is that properly managed livestock can not only preserve grasslands but can be used to restore degraded ecosystems. It’s all in how the animals are managed on the land. Photo 2 (above) shows a dry, desert environment. On the left side of the picture, notice the amount of ground cover and biological diversity. On the right side, you see basically bare ground, and exposed soil. The landscape on the right is continually losing soil, and there’s obviously no fodder for animals. The conditions on the left were created by properly managing cattle through intensive rotational grazing.

In the 1960’s Zimbabwean, wildlife biologist and farmer Allan Savory, realized that land degraded landscapes could be restored to health by strategically moving large groups of animals across the land. Allen came to this conclusion by observing how elephants moved across the savannah in large, tightly packed groups that didn’t return to the same graze lands until the grass had time to recuperate. Allen began working with conservationists to manage animals in a way that mimicked their natural behaviors and discovered that degraded ecosystems quickly regenerated due to the beneficial impact of animals on the land. Allen founded the Savory Institute and developed a management system, Holistic Management, to teach farmers how to beneficially graze livestock. Holistic Management is being used across the globe and is creating astounding results. The grazing animals’ manure is a biological startup for the soil providing nutrients, moisture and a layer of protection, creating a desirable environment for seed germination and plant growth. According to the Savory institute, one third of the earth’s surface is in grasslands and 70% of these grasslands are currently degraded. Now that we know how important soil is for carbon sequestration, we see how important it is to use animals to restore grasslands and increase sequestration.

Another method of regenerative agriculture is compost application. Recent research has shown that a single application of a half-inch layer of compost on grazed rangelands increases forage production by 40% to 70%, increases soil water-holding capacity to up to 26,000 liters per hectare, and increases soil carbon sequestration by at least one ton per hectare per year for 30 years, without reapplication. So again, when we talk about scaling this movement up, and how significant this could be if we took half an inch of compost, and applied this on a large amount of land?  The results are one ton more, per year, per hectare of carbon sequestration.

How does compost help sequester more carbon? The compost that’s applied to the soil surface activates the biological community below the soil as well as, adds organic matter to the soil increasing nutrients and water retention. Again we see that if we improve soil health we sequester more carbon. This cycle creates a system that regenerates nutrients through the interaction of plants and microorganisms. It’s a whole secured system that’s feeding itself.

This all sounds great, right? I want you to know that this is not just a theoretical solution. The use of large scale regenerative food production is happening. Over 2,000 farmers in Eastern, Southern and Western Australia have adapted a method known as pasture cropping. Pasture cropping is an agricultural system where annual crops are sown directly into perennial grasses using no tillage. The perennial grass acts as a cap or mulch on the soil, holding in moisture and carbon. The roots of the perennial grasses are continually pulling carbon down into the soil. This system functions with the strategic use of livestock to eat down the perennial grasses before sewing an annual crop. Crops such as corn and wheat are sown directly into perennial grass pastures. The annual crop grows well in the carbon and nutrient-rich soil, which have thriving bacteria and fungi because the soil is never tilled. And you also have grass to bring your animals back into graze after the annual grain harvest.

Pasture cropping is also gaining popularity in the United States. It was pioneered by Australian farmers who were dealing with highly degraded lands and little rainfall. Pasture cropping has proven to be as productive and in most cases far more productive than industrial farming methods.

The Savory Institute presents a photo contrasting the same piece of land before and after introducing regenerative management. A photo of totally degraded and desertified landscape in Mexico in 1963, is compared with a photo of the same location in 2003. Between these photos the land was put into holistic management and the rotational grazing of cattle alone was used to regenerate the area. The contrast between the photos is incredible. The same piece of land is barely recognizable. If this piece of land had been left as it was in 1963, it would have degraded even further into soil erosion and would still be a bare decertified space. The picture of the land in 2003 shows a lush green area full of a diversity of plants trees and shrubs. Thanks to the work of the Allan Savory this method of regenerating landscapes through the proper management of animals is being used all throughout the world. The Savory Institute’s goal is to have one billion acres in holistic grazing by 2025. They know degraded landscapes contribute to global warming and they are strategically spreading Holistic Management as a way to sequester carbon and restore landscapes.

The Benefits of Regenerative Agriculture

Regenerative Agriculture is not only solution to climate change but has many extending benefits for our world and society. One of the largest environmental benefits of regeneratively managed lands is their water-holding capacity is greatly increased. We’ve seen in recent years, global climate change is happening: droughts and dramatic flooding are affecting communities and agricultural production all over the world. Rainfall is changing, becoming more sporadic and clean drinking water is becoming harder to find. When soils are regeneratively managed they hold and filter rainwater more effectively, increasing productivity and reducing runoff and soil erosion. The water that infiltrates through the soil more effectively reaches below ground water sources. This has a large potential to alleviate the global water crisis as it is today.

Here are some numbers on how that water-holding capacity is increased: we can measure soil carbon, and we can measure water-holding capacity and water recharge. A 1% increase in soil carbon increases water holding capacity  to 27,000 gallons of water per acre. Multiplied over thousands of acres throughout the world that adds up to a lot of water!

Regenerative production systems in comparison to industrial production systems are far more resistant to fluctuations in climate and rainfall, have more resistance against pests and diseases and are more often more productive. Healthy biological soils have higher nutrient and mineral values which grow crops with a greater concentration of nutrients.

It’s true that if you take synthetic nitrogen and you pour it on a plant in the soil, that plant takes the nitrogen up, grows and creates fruit. However, the nutrient quality of the fruit produced from the plant only given synthetic inputs is much less than that of a plant grown in a biologically rich and healthy soil. A healthy soil not only provides the plant essential nutrients that it needs to grow, but it’s also providing the plant nutrients which then transfer to the fruit we eat. The industrial food system can get by creating fruit by just giving a plant enough of these essential nutrients to create a perfect, red, plump apple. When we look at the nutrient content of that apple however, we find that it’s largely degraded from what it was 50 years ago on our grandparents’ farm.

So when we talk about food security issues, creating nutrient-dense food is absolutely essential. Regenerative systems are creating foods with higher nutrient values as well as farms that are more resilient in the face of climate change. Natural systems – like forests, wetlands, or prairies – are so biologically diverse that they have the capacity to recuperate and regenerate after catastrophic climate events. A regenerative food system is resilient in the face of global climate change and can absorb changes in climate because they function as ecosystems not as monocultures. The soil microorganisms create more favorable conditions for plants to be able to recuperate and grow. Heirloom seeds pass down environmental information, from plant generation to plant generation, about changing climates and changing temperatures. In contrast, industrial food systems which relies on industrial inputs, specialized seed, fertilizer, herbicide and pesticide, are not resilient to changes in inputs or climates.

There’s more good news. Regenerative agriculture not only has environmentally positive impacts, but it also has the potential to end global poverty and hunger. The social and economic benefits of regenerative agriculture include, healthy food for local communities as toxic pesticides, herbicides, and genetically modified organisms are removed from food and environments. It’s simply providing people with clean healthy food.

These farm systems also restructure the global food system, returning work to small farmers. Smaller farms generate a significant economic multiplier effect in the community, creating real wealth beyond the agricultural business. Regenerative farming systems demand more skilled labor, the diversification of farming enterprises, and improve the economic resilience of farming operations through diversified production. It’s about taking our food system out of the hands of large corporate, agricultural companies and returning it to communities and farmers. We’re talking about large-scale regenerative farms that feed the world and are owned by individuals and communities rather than corporations.

The Problem of Scale

So how are we going to scale up our global food system using regenerative agriculture? The studies that have been conducted measuring carbon sequestration in soils and the extending benefits of Regenerative Agriculture are being heard on a global level. For the first time, in December 2015, at the UN Climate Summit in Paris, agriculture was on the agenda as a major solution for climate change.

One of the agreements that came out of the Paris-Lima Agreements in December 2015 is the “4 per 1,000” initiative, proposed by the French Ministry of Agriculture. It suggests that a 4% annual growth rate of soil carbon would make it possible to stop the present increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Many countries have signed on to the “4 per 1,000” agreement, including Mexico. We have governments diving in saying, “How do we make this possible? We see the potential for drawing down the amount of carbon dioxide; let’s make it happen. Let’s get it into practice.”

Developing the Change Makers

Another necessary step in scaling this movement up is to stop subsidizing the degenerative agriculture industry, and incentivize regenerative agriculture. Researchers are focusing on how we can best measure the amount of carbon being sequestered in soils. We are also creating definitions for what methods of production qualify regenerative agriculture. This is being developed as we speak, so that we can qualify “Regenerative farms”. In the future farmers will be able to be certified “Regenerative” and have clear standards of production. We will measure how many tons of carbon the farmer returns to the soil annually, and farmers will receive carbon credits for doing the global service of pulling carbon out of the atmosphere, and at the same time, farmers and consumers will benefit from healthier ecosystems and food.

There’s a lot of research to be done in the area of measuring carbon sequestration. As with any biological system, it doesn’t come in a nice neat package of exactly how to measure carbon, but the studies are being done, the work is being developed. So who’s going to carry out this transition? Small farmers.

Currently, small farmers grow 70% of the world’s food on 25% of the world’s land. So when I talk about going back to the small farmers, this is still within our reach. We’ve seen small farms disappear in the United States, but globally speaking small farmers are still there, and a lot of them still have land. Many of these small farmers are subsistence farmers who are producing food but are struggling to survive. Smaller farms and conscious consumers have the potential to feed the planet.

In order to build this movement we need to connect all the dots. The great thing about what we see coming together right now with the regenerative agriculture movement is that not just soil conservationists or permaculture hippies who are into this idea. All across the board, activists for health, environment, justice, peace and democracy are saying, “Hey, this is a real solution, we’re going to start talking to our governments about it, and we’re going to start developing global initiatives and programs to address it.” Each one of you has your place in this movement, as well.

Part of our strategy must be to recognize that, as I mentioned earlier, we’re currently subsidizing degenerative agricultural systems. One of the biggest threats to a regenerative agriculture system is the hold that corporate farms and factory farms have. The amount of livestock produced in industrial factory farms by far controls the market in the Americas and in Europe. It’s time for consumers to hold factory farms accountable for the damage they do to our environment, to animals and our health. It’s time consumers and governments say, “we’re not allowing this anymore” Ranchers and cattle-raisers can be our greatest allies in the fight against climate change. There are beautiful relationships forming all over the Midwest, in the United States, of environmentalists and ranchers coming together, learning techniques for proper animal management on grasslands. Farmers make more money, because they have healthier grasses, are able to put more animals on their land, and their lands are healthier, are protected against erosion and are sequestering more carbon.

We also need to push the organic community to go beyond the minimum of the organic standards. Just because an agricultural system is organic, doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily regenerative. True organic farmers know these regenerative methods, and they’ve been using them- minimum tillage, cover cropping, rotation of crops, etc. However, organic standards don’t necessarily include regenerative practices, so we need to push the organic community to start recognizing and start measuring more ecological standards. Yes, these production systems are organic, but are they regenerative? Are they healthy for the environment? We need to make sure production systems aren’t degrading our soils in any way.

Become a leader in the movement. Every time we eat at a restaurant, every time we buy food for our family, every time we have a lawn or a garden we make choices that support degenerative or regenerative systems. This movement is global, and it involves all of us. So, I urge you to become a leader in this movement, wherever you are.

The climate movement offers doom and gloom news, and what we need is hope that we can reverse climate change. If regenerative agriculture is scaled up to the potential that it has, we’re talking about pulling more carbon out of the atmosphere than we are emitting, which would be bringing our carbon dioxide levels down annually, reversing the effects of global climate change. I haven’t heard of any other climate solution that has offered us that potential as well as a long list of other benefits to the environment and to humans.

It is absolutely necessary that this movement become globalized, replicated on large amounts of land very quickly. A new initiative, launched at the climate talks in Paris this past December, is an organization called Regeneration International, which is a group of world leaders in various environmental movements who have come together to solve problems in agriculture and climate change. Some of the founding members are Ronnie Cummins from the Organic Consumer Association, Vandana Shiva, Andre Leu from IFOAM Organics International, Hans Herren from the Millennium Institute, and Steve Rye from Mercola.com. We have major political and global leaders, who are from all different sectors — the health sector, the agricultural sector, the environmental sector — all coming together to say regenerative agriculture needs to be heard, focused on, developed, and rolled out on a large scale.

I urge you to go to the Regeneration International webpage. They’ve done an amazing job at collecting articles, research, videos and information surrounding agriculture, climate, health, and the environment. It’s an amazing resource to educate yourself and your community with the latest research and progress.

So, you are part of your movement. As you know, you vote with your dollar. Your political pressure on our politicians, many of whom have been bought by the large agriculture industry, is necessary. It’s time to put pressure on them and say, “Enough is enough.”

There are several ways you can join the movement. In the United States join the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), the a sister organization of Vía Orgánica. OCA is comprised of over two million members. It is an online, grassroots-advocacy group representing organic consumers in the United States. They are very politically active in the United States representing consumers. I urge you to get connected with the OCA, on their webpage and their newsletters.

Vía Orgánica here in Mexico, includes an organic store and restaurant that supports hundreds of local producers, educational programs and an ecological ranch and learning center. Via Organic offers free workshops every week from their location in Centro. They also have a radio program every Tuesday that talks about agriculture, environmental issues, and health. The Via Organic ecological ranch is a model and training center in regenerative organic agriculture. Via Organica is doing very exciting education with urban and rural communities, and is developing international partners in regenerative agriculture.

Regenerate means to give fresh life or vigor, to revitalize, to recreate nature, to cause to be born again. And when we look at the state of our world, the state of our societies, political environments, our environmental state, I think we can all agree that a regenerative approach is absolutely necessary. It’s an exciting message of hope that I’m very grateful to share with you today. Thank you.