With health care and Afghanistan dominating the recent news coverage, almost lost in the cold was the fact that the President of the United States did, in fact, attend the climate change summit in Copenhagen and helped broker the accord that came out of the meetings of the international community.Thankfully, Steve Baragona of Voice of America News online has put together a break-down of what Copenhagen means to international agriculture. Baragona points out that going into the conference it only seemed logical that agriculture would take on an important role since agriculture is directly affected by climate change and is a contributor to climate change and is essential to human survival. Yet, “agriculture wasn’t mentioned in the final accord signed December 18th by the United States, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa.”
This led Ajay Vashee, president of the International Federation of Agriculture Producers, to comment in the Baragona story that, ‘“it’s basically back to the drawing board as far as agriculture is concerned [.]’” The negotiators did agree on a structure that will guide a potential future agreement that could involve the farming community more directly.
One part of the deal reached in Copenhagen is that countries can earn credits for “preserving and restoring their forests [.]” But the details of this deal are hard to come by and some in the agriculture industry have warned that this idea could be bad if it leads to less crops being planted.
Others argue increased tree coverage could be good for agriculture in terms of providing natural fertilizers and retaining water. As Baragona reports, there is a clear philosophical difference in the agriculture community on these issues and basically what is the preferred model of agriculture: the western model, or a type of agriculture less dependent on pesticide and fertilizer use? This issue was discussed but decisions were kicked down the road to be dealt with later.
The American Farm Bureau Federation’s Russell Williams had this to say about the issue, ‘"You just have to stand up and say, 'Hey, wait a second. It doesn't do anybody any good to denigrate Western agriculture . . . And no matter what you think, and no matter what you say, Western agriculture has become the most efficient land use for food. The United States feeds a whole heck of a lot of people."’
And the world’s population will only continue to grow in the future. Baragona writes that this almost certainly means the issue will draw sparks again in future negotiations. The crux of the problem is simple: How do you reduce greenhouse gas emissions and continue to feed a growing world population? The solution will be much more complex and will directly affect the international agricultural community.
To read Baragona’s story in Voice of America News click here.
Posted: 12/23/09
