Transforming Land Use for Sustainable Agriculture: Exploring Social Roots of Change

1. Transformational Change in Agriculture and Land Use: Old Tribes, New Tribes… Some Speculations on the Social Roots of Sustainability John Wiener, J.D., Ph.D. Institute of Behavioral Science University of Colorado at Boulder UCB 483, Boulder, CO 80309-0483 john.wiener@Colorado.edu www.colorado.edu/ibs/eb/wiener/ PLEASE NOTE: There are substantial references and some discussions In “speaker’s notes” are of many slides; printing is enlarged.

2. Orientation for the Session: What’s the Problem? • Unsustainability problems loom for Big Ag, but not our subject today • Losses of Small Ag and peri-urban resources… • Individuals competing and we are all losing… • The landscape scale idea from Agroecology • A brief message from M. Kalani Souza, who cannot be here • Dr. Mike Dosskey • Dr. Gretchen Sassenrath et al. • Dr. Karletta Chief • Dr. John Wiener (subbing for • Mr. Ed Thomas, Esq.

3. Where to find Basics on Conventional Agriculture Unsustainability • The excellent syntheses on agricultural issues: • 2009: International Assessment of Agricultural Science, Knowledge and Technology for Development (“IAASTD”) • 2010: U.S. National Research Council • 2011: United Kingdom Government Office for Science: Foresight: The Future of Food and Farming • For global scale modeling and analyses: a small sample from Proceedings of the National Academy of Science: Special Features Inter-sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project, Vol 111 no 9 (2014) Agricultural Innovation to Protect the Environment, Vol 110 no 21 (2013) Livestock and Global Change: Emerging Issues for Sustainable Food Systems Vol 100 No 52 (2013) And see brand new: Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 69(6) (2014) (And, also recommended: World Resources Institute, World Bank and others: Creating A Sustainable Food Future – two parts public at time of writing (Searchinger et al., 2013, and Winterbottom et al. 2013). Climate impacts on US agriculture see: Walthall et al. 2012 – USDA contribution to National Climate Assessment – Vose et al. - Climate impacts on US Forestry… USDA contribution to National Climate Assessment Range: Polley, H.W., D.B. Briske, J.A. Morgan, K. Wolter, D.W. Bailey, and J.R. Brown, 2013, Climate Change and North American Rangelands: Trends, Projections, and Implications. Rangeland Ecology and Management 66: 493-511. DOI: 10.2111/REM-D-12-00068.1 Range: Joyce, L.A., D.B. Briske, J.R. Brown, H.W. Polley, B.A. McCarl and D.W. Bailey, 2013, Climate Change and North American Rangelands: Assessment of Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies. Rangeland Ecology and Management 66: 512-528. DOI 10.2111/REM-D-12-00142.1 On soils and unsustainability,: DeLong, C., R. Cruse, and J. Wiener, 2015, The Soil Degradation Paradox: Compromising Our Resources When We Need Them the Most. Sustainability 2015, Vol. 7: 866-879. (doi: 10 3390/su7010866.) (Open Access).

4. AGRICULTURE IS THE BIG LAND AND WATER USE!!! AND THE EXTENSIVE SOURCE OF EXTERNALITIES THOUGH NOT THE ONLY SOURCE EVERY OTHER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ISSUE INTERACTS WITH LAND AND WATER USE --- THIS IS THE SUBSTRATE FOR THE HYBRID ECOLOGY (see AWRA Water Resources Impact Jun 2008 intro)

5. BIG PROBLEMS DOWN ON THE FARM • Vulnerability to loss of financial, social, and human capital in small and mid-scale agriculture is alreadydriving local stewards --“family farms”– into hobbies • Vulnerability of soils to increased variability and extremes, including precipitation intensity, is worse with monoculture on high-input, high-yield, high-externality, high-risk treadmill, and is among threats to sustainability of land and water quality • The consumer preference and WTP for “local,” not just and sometimes instead of “organic” is a directional guide, but undertake transition now! Skip “doing it the hard way” because that may greatly increases losses • Please see archive of Dr. Richard Cruse and Mr. Craig Cox from NAF 2015, and the NAF 2015 Symposium on “The Roots of Adaptation: U.S. Policy Issues Now”

6. Agribusiness Is BIG • Cargill is one of the largest private companies in the world, and “has a wide-ranging business that includes everything from growing and processing crops, to blending and shipping biofuels, to making food products.” • Cargill Website (www.cargill.com): $136.4 Billion sales in 2013; net earning $2.3 Billion. • ConAgra #184 of Fortune 500 – 2014 est profits $774 million, on $15,491 million in sales… • But Archer Daniels Midland is much bigger - #27 in Fortune 500, with 2014 est $1.342 B profits… • John Deere Inc. is #80… $3.5 Billion profits in 2014 • Tyson Foods, Inc., #93, had only $778 M profits in 2014

7. BUT NOT ALL AG IS BIG: The “Hidden Half” of US Agricultural Potential:National Research Council 2010: Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems for the 21st Century “Small and mid-sized family farms together owned two-thirds of the total value of farmland, buildings, and equipment and managed roughly 60 percent of all U.S. farmland and cropland in 2007…” (p. 49) For the 87% of farms with sales <$250k/y, there was only 7% of the net farm income; about 80% of net income want to bigger sales farms… (p. 69) See Family Farm Reports from USDA ERS… There are important locational and size qualities of the small farms: critical in the peri-urban mosaic we want to preserve! Amenity and recreational (and real estate) values, ecosystem services, habitat and Integrated Pest Management values… and the increasingly valued local and fresh food and associated values…

8. Meanwhile, “Small family farms account for most U.S. farms and a majority of farm assets”(USDA Chart of Note, 06 Feb 2013; Hoppe and Banker 2010 Family Farm Report) BUT… FROM ALL THAT, SMALL FARMS GOT ONLY 7 % OF NET INCOME! But, 60% of cropland?

9. Two Sets of Problems: Peri-urban/Irrigated “small” vs BIG ag • For the small operations Still over 50% of farm assets, but 16% of sales… and 7% of net farm income: HIGH VULNERABILITY • Urbanization, rural residential development – tremendous land and water loss! • Inability to finance transition for resilience to climate and “markets”! • For the Big conventional Ag: Sustainability VERY doubtful… • Erosion of soil, soil quality losses already very serious! • Herbicide and other resistance evolving fast; no till at risk! • 25 years (1982-2007) : same # acres but 22% are not the same acres! DISPLACEMENT FROM BEST LAND…then ethanol-spurred sodbusting again! • FOR EVERYONE: CLIMATE VARIATION AND CHANGE – higherintensity precipitation events, more frequent extremes with cumulative impacts… destructive sequences… (National Climate Assessment 3, May 2014, Chaps 3 and 6; Walthall et al. 2012 USDA input report). • “SOIL EROSION ESTIMATED TO COST IOWA $1 BILLION IN YIELD” –May 2014 Des Moines Register front page story on Dr. Cruse and EWG studies!

10. QUALITY OF LAND IN US FARMING: 25 years, about same acreage in crops, but displacement of farming… Note: this before the ethanol boom in new land – AND this does not address usefulness of the land in terms of landscapes… Cropland may about the same in area but IS IT THE SAME QUALITY? Recent: Francis et al. 2012 arguing, NOT AS GOOD… KILL THE BEST FIRST ?!?!?

11. Affecting the “small ag” 60% of farmland… This is where the best land and water is or was, and the extreme rates of land conversion out of farming (see also Francis et al. 2012)

12. New view, 2013 – color Scheme flipped Here, green is influence And brown is not… http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ urban-influence-codes/documentation. aspx#.U6KXFSimWns

13. Voluntary Adaptation Is Needed(see notes) • Can’tforce conservation on private land/water • Can’t buy them into social optimum • Can’t buy them into very long-term conservation with most of present programs… • BUT – Can we help them organize on “right-size” scales, help with tools like municipal finance capacity (long-term cheap capital!) • Help with support for ecosystem services, amenities, recreational values…. • HELP WITH FOLLOWING “TRIBE-LIKE” MODELS? HOW TO DEVELOP COLLABORATION IN SMALL/MEDIUM FARMS? • WAYS TO TRANSITION TO SUSTAINABLE FOR “THEIR” REASONS… WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU OWNED ALL THE PIECES? THINK BIG! • A few words about the speakers…

14. Transformational Change in Agriculture and Land Use: Old Tribes, New Tribes… Session Orientation and Introduction of Topics John Wiener, J.D., Ph.D. Institute of Behavioral Science University of Colorado at Boulder UCB 483, Boulder, CO 80309-0483 john.wiener@Colorado.edu <www.colorado.edu/ibs/eb/wiener/>

15. Voluntary Adaptation is Needed (see notes) • Can’t force conservation on private land/water • Can’t buy them into social optimum • Can’t buy them into very long-term conservation with most of present programs… • BUT – Can we help them organize on “right-size” scales, help with tools like municipal finance capacity (long-term cheap capital!) • Help with support for ecosystem services, amenities, recreational values…. • HELP WITH FOLLOWING “TRIBE-LIKE” MODELS? • WAYS TO TRANSITION TO SUSTAINABLE FOR “THEIR” REASONS… WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU OWNED ALL THE PIECES? THINK BIG!

16. Why New Tribes Should Learn From Old Tribes… A very short subset of a lot of knowledge… • The Test of Time: HOW LONG WERE PEOPLE WHERE THEY WERE? • Archives from THIS CONFERENCE – information on long-term successful adaptation brought into the descriptions of what is happening to them now • Tremendous scientific literature – e.g. classics such as Sturtevant, W.C., General Editor, Handbook of the North American Indians; Vols 1 and 16 not available, 2 -15 and 17 available; thousands of other sources… ethnographies, histories… • Recognition and acceptance in Common Property Resource Governance and new appreciation for long-term success (Posey, Ed., Ostrom and colleagues) • Great recent reconsiderations of traditional knowledge and values – e.g. US Third National Climate Assessment, Bennett, et al., Special Issue Vol 120 (2013); some recent and some old classic sources in “notes” section… • It’s ALL ABOUT HUMAN CHOICES for the hybrid ecology…

17. Delusions – How UNTRIBAL can you get? Absolute Ownership (1066?) – “property is right to destroy”; Chain of title: God  King  individual? Mobility of Capital everything has a substitute? Accounting for Dead Stuff OK for Living Resources “Markets Are Magic” without social structure or cultural support – let’s have 2 page economics textbooks??? There is No Public Interest in the Future! No group self-defense? Ag cannot regionally integrate and close loops and sustain?

18. Natural/Ecosystem Capital Human Capital Built Capital Social Capital Financial Capital DRAW YOUR OWN? WHAT KINDS OF CONVERSIONS ARE REALLY POSSIBLE? AND HOW EFFICIENT ARE THEY? WHAT CONVERSIONS DO WE NEED TO STRENGTHEN? Five Capitals --- Wiener, 2009 CPASW presentation; modifying Bebbington; see also Ellis, F., 2000, Rural Livelihoods and Diversity in Developing Countries. Oxford U. Press.

19. The Goal: Conserve inherentagricultural capacity and ecosystem services A working definition: Capacity of agricultural resources, including water, soils, techniques, crafts, and skills, diverse live true-breeding seeds and livestock, to produce food, feed and fiber with inputs only from local and regional agricultural and related activity. INHERENT capacity is greater than utility as a substrate for a short-term stew of fertilization and biocides.

20. Beginning Points -- Framework for Transition Design for maximum economic yield (not maximum gross output, but best return on investment of inputs)… for the long planning horizon NEED FINANCE • RIGHT-SIZING– economies of scale, not consolidation and simplifying! • GOAL: INTEGRATED MULTIFUNCTIONAL AGROECOLOGY– SETS of right-sized operations, resources, and projects to improve resilience… (e.g., sets of renewable energy and cooperating groups of farms/ranches). (long note!) • Integrated: livestock and crops and energy and all the other outputs! • Multifunctional: many outputs, try to design for all the outputs • Agroecology: use the whole environment rather than opposing it! • LANDSCAPE SCALES – not little rectangles versus terrain! • WHAT WOULD YOU DO IF YOU OWNED ALL THE PIECES?

21. That Multifunctional Diversified Agroecology Idea…How would it really work? GET OFF THE GRID • Concentrated flow paths – Mike Dosskey and others… Drainage does not follow a grid – so why should buffers and filters? • Water in streams – does not follow a grid • Wind? Windbeltsthat make sense? • Wildlife? Conservation loves corridors and connectivity, not straight lines • Pests and Integrated Pest Management refugia? • Pollen? • Pollutants? • SO, ON TO THE LANDSCAPE SCALE!

22. The Landscape Scale – BENEFITS!!! • Landscape scales for ECOSYSTEM SERVICES , habitat values, connectivity – AVOID ESA, RECOVER DIVERSITY, SUPPORT TRANSITIONS… • Farm INVESTMENT “right-sizing” in equipment and purchases • Farm output marketing – RISK MANAGEMENT and production sequencing to meet demands • STABILIZE AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPE! Be able to use a long-range planning horizon. (large set of references in “speaker’snotes”)Reduce landscape perforation! • Resilience from flexibility of management – organize to stop perforation and conversion of the best land -- Maybe climate info can stimulate? • TIME TO GET OFF THE GRID!!! See Dosskey et al, various… design for multifunctionality, for agroecology, for diversity and CUT LOSSES – close the loops… The rectangular land division is no longer sensible! • REFERENCES IN NOTES AREA)

23. Thinking Adaptively – Out of the Farm Scale Box • Who benefits from local agriculture, the ecosystem services provided, and the conservation of inherent productive capacity? Who doesn’t? • My argument: farmers and ranchers need to use all their assets, but they cannot do it without community support… And they may have TO BE COMMUNITIES • Cities and water managers are also critical partners – the folks and the bucks • Where states don’t act or are self-crippled • Citizen have far wider interests than water rates and blah food • Water suppliers and cities and ADAPTERS have foresightand technical capacity • And cities havecheap long-term capital! 30 years vs ??? Partnerships for long term security of investments and expectations… Best way to internalize externalities

24. Consumer Demand Drives Growth in the Organic Sector (08 Feb 13 Chart of Note) -- THE RACE IS ON! Who gets what they want?Against Sprawl and rural residential landscape perforation, huge growth in direct sales, farmers’ markets and food hubs… (Note: “local” is bigger than “organic” – (Adams and Salois 2012) What’s your account doing?

25. Toward Respect for Ecosystems – what if we lived in them? • The original analysis: Von Thunen, 1826, The Isolated State (inventor of marginal productivity economics: what is a functional region without external inputs?) What makes the most sense? • More recent: What does sustainable farming look like? E.g. Wes Jackson’s Land Institute farm in Salina, KS: looks pretty good even with price subsidy distortions from uncharged externalities… (Baum 2009)… EcoSun North Dakota (Zilverberg et al. JSWC; Williams et al. 2013 JSWC) • Sustainable diversified, integrated farming looks pretty good… (Kremen et al. special series in Ecology and Society (2012)). U.S. vs European traditions… (Carr et al. 2012; Renewable Ag. and Food Systems special issue; see also RAFS 23(4) 2008). • But, big gaps in research on sustainable/alternative agriculture as a separate business… (Seufert et al. 2012)… culturally split from conventional agriculture…

26. Ecosystem services values… • Nitrate REMOVAL from drinking water costs US $1.7 B/year… Remove 1% from source water, save >$120M/yr…. See also USDA CEAP summaries • Water-related benefits of preventing sediments/erosion $1.5 to $7/ton • Land Trust Alliance, American Farmland Trust, National Assn. Homebuilders: • Open space costs $0.35/ $1 in tax revenue • Residential development costs $1.16/$1 in tax revenue (Colorado, 2003: $1.62/$1!) • Consumer will to pay for trails, open space, amenity, quality of life… • Trust for Public Land, 2010: Long Island NY: 10-fold ROI on Agricultural Conservation Easements; > 23 States now purchase… some tax credits, too • NYC: Paying for clean watersheds; avoiding filtration plant… 1.1 BGD! • EARTH ECONOMICS – NGO that wants to help you with this! • Huge developments in valuation and policy impacts • So… the right thing looks better even with BCA – why is it rare?

27. More tid-bits on ecosystem services values… • Frisvold and Konyar 2013: reviewed other work, also… • Nitrate REMOVAL from drinking water costs US $1.7 B/year… Remove 1% from source water, save >$120M/yr.. See also USDA CEAP summaries • Water-related benefits of preventing sediments/erosion $1.5 to $7/ton • Land Trust Alliance, American Farmland Trust, National Assn. Homebuilders: • Open space costs $0.35/ $1 in tax revenue • Residential development costs $1.16/$1 in tax revenue (Colorado, 2003: $1.62/$1!) • Consumer will to pay for trails, open space, amenity, quality of life… • Trust for Public Land, 2010: Long Island NY: 10-fold ROI on Agricultural Conservation Easements; > 23 States now purchase… some tax credits, too • Philadelphia estimates that it saves >$132M/yr from ecosystem services • So… the right thing looks better even with BCA – why is it rare?

28. A few points on economics – just to mention… Efficiency is definable on a distribution of resources; it is an adjective, not a noun. FIELD SCALE Vs FARM SCALE Vs LANDSCAPE SCALE Vs REGIONAL SCALE ??? SHORT –TERM RATIONALITY --Clark, 1973: Economics of Extinction –Positive discount rate: reduce the future from far ahead to present value: A century or two out, values are trivial; not much good decades out! Discount the future PLUS all that uncertainty? Evaluation is definable within a general equilibrium, but not transferable to a different equilibrium with reallocated resources and price structures… Norgaard & Howarth 1992, etc Benefit-Cost Analysis is NOT adequate for the long term! We can’t just “do the math”! THINK SOIL FORMATION and WATER QUALITY/CONTAMINATION…

29. Maximum economic yield rather than maximum revenue – getting off the treadmill of maximum possible production makes sense! LONG-TERM – how to get there? A GRAPHIC VIEW OF RESILIENCE HOW TO MANAGE IF THE GROUP IS THE AGENT AND WANTS TO STAY FOR THE LONG TERM… Cost of making maximum harvest

30. NEED TO KNOW MORE: What are the economics of transition? • Want: Enterprise Budgets for some paradigm cases of diversified farming with new rotations – • E.g. EcoSun Prairie Project – J Soil and Water Conservation 2014 • E.g. Land Institute – full cost accounting and energy accounting (Baum et al. 2009) • E.g. National Research Council 2010 case studies, and 1989 • NOT one crop conventional versus alternative year one – need soil recovery time and farmer experiment time! (Compare Seufert et al. 2012 with Badgley et al. 2007) • NOT yields but NET • NOT one crop versus alternative version over long term alone • SYNERGIES and restoration of capacity • Permaculture and agroforestry -- • MULTI-FUNCTIONAL DIVERSIFIED AGROECOLOGY – messy! But good… • a few hundred years of pretty good results to bear in mind… • Getting people off the treadmill – stop playing by Giant Ag rules!

31. Need: Transferable Knowledge: Checkers and Translators – YOU!!! • Not possible to be lab-like with too many variables… (Francis 2010). • Bifurcation in “alternative” versus “conventional” knowledge • Extension and university research constrained by funding sources (Fuglie et al. 2011, Welsh and Glenna 2006, Zadoks and Waibel 2000) • Hard to study integrated livestock-farming (Tanaka et al. 2008, ARS) • Enterprise budgets keep coming up as ideal if possible (Olmstead and Brummer 2008, Attwell et al. 2011) – What can be learned from Europe? (Kremen, Iles and Bacon 2012; Kremen and Miles 2012 – Ecology and Society) and demonstrations… • Acceptability of information? What works with what? Who should a farmer believe? What will safely bridge cultural splits? • A RESEARCH QUESTION: ? little overlap in citations : J. of Soil and Water Conservation ; Ecology and Society; Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems… • Transferable MEANS acceptable to receiver… Reimer et al. 2014, Nowak 2013.

32. NEW TRIBES NEEDED… MANY WAYS TO MANAGE COLLABORATIVELY… a continuum…