California agriculture, climate change, and nitrogen:

Transcription

1 California agriculture, climate change, and nitrogen: Crossing boundaries of science, policy, and practice in complex working landscapes Thomas P. Tomich, Todd S. Rosenstock Agricultural Sustainability Institute, University of California, Davis

2 The California Nitrogen Assessment: an ongoing process Challenges in establishing the credibility, usefulness, and legitimacy of the assessment derive from complexity of California s agriculture, diversity of the stakeholders, competing objectives of key actors, key scientific uncertainties; all compounded by political controversies. Doubts about legitimacy of climate science and nitrogen s roles are barriers to work with key users. Discussion: mid-course revision of strategies to overcome these barriers and bridge nitrogen science, policy, and practice in California.

3 California s agricultural landscapes: Complex, intensive, dynamic, high-value CDFA commodities #1 in the US in cash receipts #1 dairy state in the US Half of US fruits, vegetables California agriculture is: growing in value; 4% of economy; 20% of land; 40-80% of fresh water

4 California s climate change policy: AB 32 (Global Warming Solutions Act) Establishes a GHG cap to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by % below 1990 by 2050 Multi-sector market-based program to start in 2012 Mandatory reporting of emissions for the largest sectors (oil, gas, electric power, cement, land fills) Little attention to agriculture, apart from dairies 60% of N 2 O and 55% of CH 4 are from agriculture (California Air Resources Board)

5 California Nitrogen Assessment Approach: integrated ecosystem assessment (modeled on IPCC and MA) Host: Agricultural Sustainability Institute at UC Davis Major funding from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Goals Gain a comprehensive view of N flows in the state, with emphasis on agriculture s roles. Provide useful insights for stakeholders into the balance between the benefits of agricultural nitrogen and the effects of surplus nitrogen in the environment. Compare options, including practices and policies

6 California Nitrogen Assessment: What is the problem? What is the N problem? Production costs? Air pollution? Surface water pollution? Groundwater pollution? Public health threats? Climate change forcing? All of these? None of these? Credibility: Is there enough solid scientific information? Usefulness: Are there feasible options? Legitimacy: Issues of public awareness and stakeholder acceptance. Clark and Majone, 1984 agbureau.com.au

7 Credibility: Necessary, not sufficient

8 California Agroecosystems Planning Project What: USDA planning grant to create proof of concept for a Long-Term Agroecosystem Program Where: the Central Valley of California USDA goal: urgent and pressing need for a program that holistically connects land management practices, human behavior and biogeochemistry to continually improve best management practices that are relevant, feasible and that are ecologically, economically and culturally sustainable. CAPP is a partnership with: researchers, extensionists, educators farmers and agribusinesses community groups and NGOs policymakers and government agencies

9 Salience & Usefulness: To whom? For whom? The mission of the California Agricultural Experiment Station is to conduct research that encompasses the continuum of fundamental and applied research for the purpose of developing new knowledge and technologies that address specific problems of importance to the people of California.

10 Linear transfer model

11 Innovation system model The almond BIOS network SAREP (staff scientist) UCCE Farm Advisors CAFF (growers organization) Commodity Organization Beneficial insects Growers PCAs Cover crops KD Warner, 2007 Agroecology in Action, p. 176

12 Groups represented on the Stakeholder Advisory Council Fertilizer industry Commodity groups Policy makers Community organizations Farmers CNA Stakeholder Advisory Council Health NGOs Government researchers University researchers Environmental NGOs

13 Stakeholder views on top agricultural sustainability issues in California Farmers (N=165) 1. Farmland preservation 2. Competition for water 3. Regulatory compliance costs 4. Viability of small and midsize farms 5. Local and regional food systems University affiliates (N=141) 1. Competition for water 2. Climate change 3. Water use efficiency 4. Habitat preservation 5. Air and water pollution 12. Climate change tied water use efficiency

14 Prominence of the issues Legitimacy challenge: People are not on the same page Policymakers Farmers Scientists pioneer Issue for activists Policy issue Control & mitigation Monitoring & enforcement

15 Legitimacy: some popular views Tom here is the director of the UC Davis Agricultural Sustainability Institute and, like most of the mancaused global warming charlatans, only gets to keep his cushy university job and millions in fat government grant money if he keeps the global warming hoax moving. It's the same old story... when it comes to crooks, follow the money. After_Hours in response to No regrets op-ed in Sacramento Bee

16 Legitimacy: views of some leaders A line must be drawn between our polite and respectful engagement with consumers and how we must aggressively respond to extremists who want to drag agriculture back to the day of 40 acres and a mule. The time has come to face our opponents with a new attitude. The days of their elitist power grabs are over. At the very time we need to increase our food production, climate change legislation threatens to slash our ability to do so. Bob Stallman President, American Farm Bureau Federation Annual address to members, 10 January 2010

17 Legitimacy: process matters in a climate of controversy Is the assessment process transparent? Is it inclusive? Does it include a broad range of views and interests? Who participated in framing assessment questions? Who participated in peer review? Was stakeholder input taken seriously throughout the process? Do participants view it as a legitimate process?

18 Legitimacy: What are we doing about it? Emphasizing transparency Systematically calling out uncertainty Reaching out to include skeptical groups on the Stakeholder Advisory Committee Reprogramming activities: from decision support to participatory scenarios Assessment forums and roundtables: public framing of assessment questions

19 Reprogramming activities: trading usefulness for legitimacy? From tools for farmers: that will allow them to develop more efficient nitrogen management strategies, saving them money on inputs; To multi-stakeholder participatory scenarios: for clarification of alternatives and associated consequences Sample Nitrogen Calculator Not used is not useful

20 Assessment Forums Collect stakeholder input Nitrogen Questions Desired outcomes/products Listening to: Producers Policy makers Commodity groups Non-governmental organizations Researchers Use feedback to shape assessment work plan Stakeholder Roles: Your Part in the Assessment Set N Assessment Priorities Identify questions assessment aims to answer Provide input on outcomes and products that meet your needs and are in a form you can use Give guidance on communication and outreach Peer review

21 Roundtables and Forums Desired outcomes: Stakeholders understand their roles. Stakeholders shape assessment questions. Strategy: broad coverage geographically, by commodity, and by interest group

22 Assessment questions set by stakeholders

23 Thank you Thomas P. Tomich Agricultural Sustainability Institute University of California, Davis

24 California Nitrogen Assessment DRAFT Conceptual framework Underlying drivers Human population growth Rising incomes Technological change Markets (shocks, globalization, protection) Social (lifestyle) and political change Direct drivers Land use and land cover change Livestock, poultry population growth Input decisions (fertilizer, water, etc) Irrigation, roads, other investments Alien species invasions Resource stocks Land Air Water Nutrients Biological resources (incl. invasives) The sun, fossil solar energy Human resources Physical infrastructure Financial capital Social, economic, political institutions Amplifier Climate change Human wellbeing Human health and nutrition Economic prosperity Social equity Healthy environment Healthy communities (education; cultural integrity, etc.) Agricultural goods & environmental services Provisioning: healthy food, clean water, fiber, fuel, etc Supporting: nutrient cycling; remediation of pollution; decomposition of waste; soil formation, buffering of floods and droughts; control of pests and diseases; etc.) Enriching (educational, cultural, aesthetic) Arrows indicate impacts (cause-effect relationships). Wider arrows are priorities for assessment. Arrow color indicates clusters of response options (policies and practices) that influence impacts. Issues in grey type are important, but are beyond the scope of this assessment.

25