Ray Massey Commercial Ag Program Crops Economist

Contracts are the most common way of participating in emerging markets. Participation in new markets uses contracts because the new responsibilities, rewards and risks are evolving. Contracts are a way of fostering the necessary dialogue. Policy involvement is also a method of opening or creating and participating in new markets.

Ag Involved Ag Involved Ag Involved Ag Involved Ag Involved http://www.gallup.com/poll/117079/water-pollution-americans-top-green-concern.aspx

Market Niches: Local foods Organic foods Natural foods

Market Niches Energy markets: Ethanol Biodiesel Biomass Wind energy Methane derived electricity

Market Niches Energy markets Greenhouse Gas Markets: Soil carbon sequestration Forest carbon sequestration Methane destruction (from manure storages)

Market Niches Energy Markets Greenhouse Gas Markets Easements: Conservation Farmland Preservation Power line Pipeline

Historically food quantity has been a political issue. Currently food quality is becoming a political issue. New York Times Best sellers The Omnivore s Dilemma Food Rules Award Winning Videos Food, Inc King Corn

Source: ISU AgDecisionMaker

Energy (gas, electricity, etc.) is a commodity. Agricultural inputs (corn, biomass) into energy are a commodity. Eventually all commodity prices tend to zero profit. New energy markets pose new profit opportunities new risk opportunities

New markets are frequently fostered by legislation or regulation. Opportunity for profit in affected markets. Subsidies are political decisions: $1/gallon biodiesel subsidy ended Jan 1, 2010.

Opportunity for Return (Profit) Possibility of Risk (Loss) Assumption of Responsibilities

An easement is a legal agreement between a landowner and another party that permanently limits the use of the specified property. Examples business power and pipe lines easements non profit organization conservation easements government agency Grassland Reserve Program or public access to land

Easements always limit land use and, therefore, almost always reduce the market value of the land. Easements can increase the value of surrounding land because it bestows some benefit Preserves the scene Creates a buffer from encroachment

A conservation easement is a voluntary, legally binding agreement that limits certain types of uses or prevents development from taking place on a piece of property now and in the future, while protecting the property s ecological or open space values. Determine what rights you are willing to relinquish.

Protect land for future generations Allows owners To retain many private property rights and To live on and use their land, Potentially provide owners with Income or Tax benefits

Different land trusts have different goals. Find a land trust that has goals with which you agree and can live/operate. Urban sprawl farmland preservation Scenic views Sensitive ecologies River concerns

Missing Tax Benefits Requires a permanent easement Requires that the easement grants public interest values to the grantee (party receiving the grant) Costs associated with selling an easement can be significant and the easement might never materialize.

Time Permanent Specified number of years Value to the Landowner Many are contributions Some are partially paid for by the easement holder A few are fully paid for by the easement holder

Land Trust Alliance http://www.ltanet.org/landtrustdirectory/ has an interactive map for finding land trusts Nature Conservancy Ozark Regional Land Trust American Land Conservancy American Farmland Trust Many more local (including governments) and national

Source: American Meteorological Society

Greenhouse gas limitations have the Potential to profit agriculture Potential to regulate agriculture Which is the greatest potential and how will it impact agriculture? Is agriculture a source of offsets or a source of emissions?

Source: EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007

Agriculture Can Provide Environmental Benefits via: Carbon Sequestration in soils and forests Methane Capture and Destruction Renewable Fuels Increased Efficiency

Producing one billion kg of milk in 2007 compared to 1944 requires: 79% fewer animals, 77% less feedstuffs, 65% less water, and 90% less land The carbon footprint was reduced 63% Source: Capper, J. L., Cady, R. A., and Bauman, D. E. (2009). The environmental impact of dairy production: 1944 compared with 2007. J. Anim. Sci. 1910.

Agriculture is viewed as a problem by Many environmental groups The UN FAO in Livestock s Long Shadow Agriculture is viewed as a savior by Agriculture Legislation, including Cap and trade regulations, will put agriculture in a favorable or unfavorable position.

The Government Entities Subject To Emission Caps Entities Able To Provide Emission Offsets Other Interested Parties The Market

Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) voluntary market for greenhouse gas trading. European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) and Climate Exchange (ECX) EU wide mandatory GHG cap and trade. Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) eastern states electric power generation cap on emissions.

Determines according to policy objectives: Who is subject to a cap Who can provide offsets What the caps are and when they are to be reached Market Rules The Chicago Climate Exchange currently determines these as a market rather than as a regulator.

Determined by government according to some type of benefit cost analysis Point sources of emissions Sufficient size to regulate

Electric Power Generation Energy Intensive Manufacturing Indirect GHG emitters (e.g. businesses with negligible GHG emissions) EU ETS RGGI CCX Yes Yes Voluntary Yes No Voluntary No No Voluntary

Direct fertilizers Non point source pollution difficult to cap. Cap the upstream source either ammonia producer or natural gas supplier. Enteric fermentation Cap would be difficult to implement. Tax would be easier to implement. Manure Management Most easily subject to cap. Only farm level emission subject to EPA mandatory emissions reporting rule

Determined by government according to policy considerations Power generation without GHG emissions Methane Destruction emitters too small to regulate who voluntarily reduce GHG emissions in order to participate in the market Carbon sequestration International projects to help developing countries reduce emissions

EU ETS RGGI CCX Landfills No Yes Yes Manure Storage No Yes Yes Developing country projects Yes No No Soil Sequestration No No Yes Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (Sec 732 (e)) An offset credit does not constitute a property right.

Permanent Additional Verifiable Enforceable

Soil Carbon Sequestration Contracts currently last 5 years. Forest Carbon Sequestration Contracts currently last 15 years.

Only trade offsets that are done in order to obtain the carbon reductions CCX carbon sequestrations that are not additional CRP after 1999 but before the contract No till from farmers that were already no tilling Early action credits are controversial in GHG trading schemes.

CCX carbon sequestration contracts are based on estimates rather than actual measurements of carbon sequestered Verification might entail measurement Simple for manure methane capture and destruction Cost prohibitive for soil carbon sequestration Verification could entail discounting of estimates (See Kim and McCarl. 2009. Uncertainty Discounting for Land Based Carbon Sequestration. JAAE. 41:1 11.)

Aggregators assist small entities enter the market Liquidity providers banks and financial institutions Environmentalists purchase offsets and lobby for policy changes Green industries that benefit from regulations and lobby for policy changes

Determined by government according to policy considerations Permitted trading region: Regional? National? International? Initial allocation of allowances greatly affects market performance

http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/market/data/summary.jsf 1/12/10

$45 $30 $15 http://www.europeanclimateexchange.com/ 11/13/09

Note: not all GHG shown in this chart. Source: EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2007

Administration: $13 14 per ton CO 2 Congressional Budget Office: $23 to 44 per ton CO 2 Wall Street Journal, March 9, 2009

Used mostly EPA analysis of prices for their estimate of impact on agriculture. Item Motor Fuel 4% Natural Gas 8.5% Electricity 12.7% Nitrogen Fertilizer 3% Carbon Credits Inflation change ( average and illustrative) $9 to $13 per ton

Cash receipts Prices due to shifts in acreage or production Selling carbon credits Cash outlays Higher energy costs for fuel and electricity Higher chemical prices resulting from higher energy costs Lower Nitrogen fertilizer costs due to EITE allowances

Key: Green = higher ending cash Red = lower ending cash Source: Texas A&M Ag and Food Policy Center, Research Paper 09-2

Written agreements that specify Allocation of Responsibilities Allocation of Rewards Allocation of Risks

Input based: Organic contract requires only that you follow certain steps. Soil carbon sequestration contract only requires that you use no till production system. Output based: Wind energy contracts are based on kilowatt hours of electricity produced. Methane destruction contracts based on tons of methane destroyed.

Assets that can do only one thing are more risky, and potentially rewarding, than an asset that can do multiple things Grain bin has high asset specificity Tractor has low asset specificity New contracts with high asset specificity Lagoon covers for methane destruction risky Ridge tops with high wind speeds rewarding

Contracts cannot contain every possible outcome so they try to talk about the most likely outcomes or the most important outcomes. Where a contract does not specify an outcome, there is opportunity for reward or risk. Contractual incompleteness is often called loopholes.

What are the possible Rewards? What are the possible Risks? Who is Responsible for different decisions?

Farmer or landowner agrees to farm using notill methods in exchange for the right to sell exchange soil offsets to businesses wanting to reduce their carbon footprint. Exchange Soil Offsets are priced according to supply and demand for them.

Responsibility Conduct verification on 10% of acres enrolled. Sells the offsets when they want and for the price they decide. Risk Incur expenses even when not selling offsets. Price is uncertain. Reward Receive 10% of offset sales in commission.

Continuous conservation tillage for 5 years USDA Handbook of Conservation Practices rules Continuous soybeans are eligible only if there is a cover crop. Residue removal is limited. Records need to be maintained. Pay costs of aggregator from the proceeds of marketing the offsets.

Failure to comply with responsibilities results in fines and penalties. 5 year contract reduces flexibility in land management. Don t know the price that you will receive. CCX Market is set to expire in 2010. Aggregators are not bonded. Land tenure changes do not nullify the contract.

http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/market/data/summary.jsf 1/12/10

$45 $30 $15 http://www.europeanclimateexchange.com/ 11/13/09

Receive money for offsets provided. May receive this for no additional work if already using conservation practices. 20% of offsets are held until the end to insure compliance

Ray Massey Commercial Ag Program Crops Economist