Information on Indirect Land Use

• Historical trends indicate increased U.S. ethanol demand has not been a significant driver of global land use change.
  
• Increased crop productivity has primarily provided the growth in production necessary to meet heightened demand for crop-based feed, food, and fuel.

• Despite increases in the amount of coarse grains used for ethanol, the amount of land dedicated to coarse grains (corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, rye, and millet) globally has decreased over the past 30 years.
• Global area for coarse grains has decreased 8 percent since 1980, while world grain ethanol production has increased dramatically.

• A 2002 study by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization revealed a tremendous amount of unused land is potentially suitable for agriculture. 
  
  
• FAO determined, “There is still potential agricultural land that is as yet unused…” and that an amount of land twice as large as that which is currently farmed “…is to some degree suitable for rain-fed (agricultural) production.”

• One of the main arguments waged by those who believe increased biofuels production will lead to significant indirect land use change is the idea that U.S. corn and soybean exports will drop appreciably, inciting cultivation in other countries to account for the lost volume on the world market. Such an export reduction has not occurred.

• A February 2009 study conducted by Air Improvement Resource, Inc. found the current Renewable Fuels Standard requiring 15 billion gallons of corn ethanol by 2015 should not result in new forest or grassland conversion domestically or abroad. 
  
  
• The study states that using a yield improvement path to 183 bushels of corn per acre in 2015, the increase in corn use for U.S. ethanol production can be met without a decline in corn exports or stocks. 

• A February 2009 study conducted by Dr. Steffen Mueller from the Energy Resources Center at the University of Illinois at Chicago found that a modern ethanol plant does not meaningfully change farmland use, neither the amount of land farmed nor the mix of crops planted. 

 

OCGA has a strong conservation ethic and we believe that as good stewards of the land our members must maintain its productivity by retaining nutrients in the soil, reducing soil erosion and managing crop inputs. OCGA members are concerned with the health and well-being of American citizens and are mindful of the need to balance environmental stewardship with the need for a long-term, dependable food supply and the necessity for long-term profitability in farming.

Our corn farmer members take responsibility for their farming activities and do so with a keen eye towards conservation, productivity and marketing. It is for these reasons that NCGA supports voluntary, locally led, incentive-based programs which recognize the unique abilities and limitations of farmers.

OCGA continues to have a number of concerns with climate pending climate legislation; however we remain at the table during discussions with Congress over agriculture's role in such legislation, such as:

1. The agricultural sector must not be subject to an emissions cap.

2. Any cap and trade legislation must fully recognize the wide range of carbon mitigation or sequestration benefits that agriculture can provide.

3. Cap and trade legislation that makes economic sense for agriculture.

4. USDA should promulgate the rules and administer an agricultural offset program.

5. The use of domestic offsets must not be artificially limited.

6. Establish carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas mitigation rates based on science.

7. Any cap and trade legislation must provide an initial list of project types that are eligible agricultural offsets.

8. Recognize early actors.

9. Offer stackable credits.


Climate Policy

Why should we be at the table for climate legislation? Whether you believe in climate change or not, climate legislation is coming for many industries; OCGAis adamant that farmers need to be at tbe table during these discussions to benefit from such legislation.

OCGA supports the designation of qualified offsets that will be acceptable in a cap and trade program. Current estimates of U.S. Greenhouse Gas markets indicate that U.S. farms have the potential to mitigate as much as 40% of our nation's total climate impact with practices such as soil carbon sequestration or methane capture.

What does this mean? It could mean dollars for farmers - and environmental dividends. Under cap-and-trade legislation before the Congress, U.S. agricultural producers could tap billions annually in offset markets and allowance income. However, these new markets are not assured. Some oppose development of robust agricultural offset markets.

a.) Qualified offsets must be real, additional, verified, registered, fungible, and permanent (or of contracted duration).

b.) Qualified offsets must include altered tillage practices, reduction of nitrogen fertilizer use or increased nitrogen efficiency use.

c.) The agriculture sector must not be capped and must be afforded an opportunity to contribute via the market for offsets. The goal should be to remove as much greenhouse gases from the atmosphere as possible. Artificial caps will prevent legitimate carbon sequestration, livestock methane capture and manure gasification projects from occurring.

d.) The cap and trade system design should reward early actors in uncapped sectors for incremental reductions after a specified date. The cap and trade system design must identify and guard against potential perverse outcomes such as the temporary cessation of a practice in order to restart the same practice as a qualified additional project earning offsets.

e.) While the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will be the administrator of a cap and trade program, the USDA should be the administering agency with respect to agriculture offset project rules.

More information from the Agricultural Carbon Market Working Group

The Agricultural Carbon Market Working Group is unique for our industry in that it is comprised of national farm leaders from all three major commodities, the biofuels industry, and other key agricultural stakeholders. OCGA staff and farmer leaders serve on this board. Together we have spent two years studying and addressing potential carbon offset markets for agriculture that could result from national policy. We have also worked with our agricultural organizations to begin addressing issues related to climate markets for agriculture.

The Agricultural Carbon Market Working Group works cooperatively with other entities interested in seeing carbon markets for agriculture such as nine land grant universities, Consortium for Agricultural Soil Mitigation of Greenhouse Gases (CASMGS), the Dole Daschle 21st Century Farm Policy Initiative, as well as Environmental Defense Fund, an organization that supports agricultural offsets.

The Agricultural Carbon Market Working Group has identified a series of key policy principles that we believe form the basis for informed discussion of agricultural carbon markets, or greenhouse gas (GHG) markets.

Here are a few policy proposals our group has agreed should form the basis for discussion:

a.) We support engaging in climate policy legislation to protect agriculture's opportunity to participate in new revenue streams that derive from carbon offset markets related to conservation practices and renewable fuels;

b.) There should be no limits on the agricultural sector as an eligible carbon offset provider;

c.) Agricultural producers should be allowed to market the value of management practices and renewable fuel related GHG offsets that result in demonstrable improvements to global climate through both emission reductions and additional carbon sequestered terrestrially;

d.) We support U.S. agriculture's participation in an international carbon market so long as countries that have agreed to set limits on emissions are treated under non-discriminatory protocols;

e.) The agricultural community supports funding from the Department of Energy that gives consideration to both terrestrial sequestration as well as geologic alternatives at least up to the funding levels in Phase II levels (75% Geologic & 25% Terrestrial);

d.) Carbon credits prices should be established in a transparent marketplace, free from artificial limits;

e.) While individual states may choose to develop trading rules and protocols for agriculture-related carbon offsets, we support development of national standard similar to other commodities that provide consistency and standardization for trading throughout agriculture in the US;

f.) The USDA should play a leading role in providing measurement, education, and research support to agriculture entities interested in defining the value of management activities and marketing projects that store carbon and/or reduce emissions;

g.) The USDA should be integrally involved in the establishment of standardized trading protocols.

For more information: http://www.agcarbonmarkets.com/index.htm