Chapter 8 —  The Time Frame

Major changes can happen quickly, if intelligent choices are formulated under a collective decision-making process.   This is the message constructed in previous chapters of this website.  It has also suggested that the focus should be on agriculture, due to the immense scale of the overall food system, but also because the AG sector is well positioned NOW for changes that will radically mitigate the global climate crisis, along with biodiversity and many other critical issues.  The final message is, that these changes can be relatively simple to activate, will provide mega net profits along with mega net energy savings, and can execute in a very short time frame.  This final chapter is about the Time Frame.

The conversions in the food sector can begin immediately under current management and existing resources.  In fact, it already has.  That conversion can expand to affect the bulk of the food sector in a period of years, not decades.  In general, about 2 to 5 years for the changes proposed.  This chapter will look at some of the variables in the process, and then consider a schedule for the actual changes.

Variables:

As shown in the previous chapter, many changes are under way, including:

• Natural areas are converting to farmlands and other development.  And vice versa, as cultivated areas are retired, or degraded, or join programs such as EQIP, CRP, easements, or other options.
• Sustainable farms – such as traditional small dairies, orchards, etc – convert to conventional operations.  And vice versa, as industrial operations switch to organic, local, regenerative, etc.
• Family farms are leased out to larger operators or purchased by corporations and investors.
• American farmland is bought by foreign companies.  And vice versa, as U.S. investors buy into foreign real estate.
• Rural areas are drained of population as farm operations are automated.  Or re-settled, as urban populations move out to more affordable and livable rural areas.

A move towards sustainable and regenerative agriculture is underway, and there are many intensive efforts underway to describe and quantify it. Many agencies, public/private/and NGO, are working hard on mapping, statistics, and analysis. There is a lot of information available, but, as stated earlier, it is preliminary, and there are problems with data, definitions, consistency – in short, we do not yet have a collective and clear analysis of the farming industry with respect to environmental priorities.  That could change quickly.  Here are some of the variables:

A consistent and accurate mapping process would show how farmland is used nationwide, including all factors (themes) relating to sustainability.  These would include a breakdown of farm categories (cropland, rangeland, pasture, livestock feed, human feed, energy crops, fiber, and a few others).  It would show the type of ownership (public, private, family, corporate, foreign), and the frequency of property transactions.  All of these factors above are already attainable given current mapping layers and resources, with a bit of careful processing.  But here is the hard part:  we also need to see something about the farming methods and conditions for each land unit, related to sustainability.  Is it conventional farming, with industrial and extractive methods? Or is it regenerative farming, with cover crops, prescribed grazing, and a healthy ecosystem in place? Or, more realistically, something in between? How can this critical information be teased out of the data?  

Those are some of the factors involved in defining and analyzing the potential conversion towards sustainable farming.  Some other key factors include: is the farm operation subsidized or constrained by external interests (marketing, transportation, research, legal, regulatory, energy, security, consulting, cultural, etc.).  This sounds complex, but it is in practice fairly simple – most farmers have few if any options for method and marketing in the current industrial set-up.

Another key factor is property transactions, or sales.  A large portion of the farm population is aging out and those farms are up for sale.  At the same time, there is a very hot global real estate industry with a growing focus on farm land.  Investors around the world are buying up farms, and not just in the Congo and the Amazon.  This is a key variable, that needs to be in the map.

Natural areas are converting rapidly –  into farmlands, primarily, but also to urban, commercial, etc.  While this is rampant and apocalyptic in Africa, South America and South Asia, it is also happening in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico.  Such ownership changes and trends need to be obtainable via GIS data layers, including land use/land cover and cadastral (parcel data).  What direction will these new land purchases take in terms of sustainability?  Some may convert to greener methods, and others to more ‘conventional’.

A collective approach to Area-wide planning is needed to meet conservation objectives – that much has been clearly established (see Ch.5).  Some states and regions have instituted this planning, but most have not, and there is a long way to go even with those that have.  This is a critical factor in the conversion to sustainable land use, and our land use maps need to show it.

Many other factors may be useful in the analysis, and could be incorporated into the map.  For instance, how close is the farm to an urban area or other population?  This could affect the ability to use dangerous pesticides, excessive tillage that causes dust and runoff, and other practices.  Such spatial variables are very easy to extract with mapping/GIS analysis.

All of the above are variables that could help to illuminate and accelerate the conversion to sustainable agriculture.  But none of them are pre-requisites for that change.  Major changes can be initiated without further study, science, politics or conventional planning and strategizing.  Consider this:  How long does it take to stop burning down a forest?  Or to stop passing out misguided subsidies?  Or to allow local slaughter houses to process local beef?  Or to allow local consumers to buy that beef? Or to stop supporting toxic regimes, or toxic merchandising ?  How long does it take to stop throwing resources away via outdated and destructive practices? And how much of those resources could we then redirect to sustainable practices?  With that in mind, here is a rough schedule for changes in agriculture: 

In the following schedule, here are some of the changes that will need to happen:

• Conventional farming methods will change to sustainable and regenerative.
  • Buffers/ corridors/ riparian habitats will be established.  This often involves ceasing to plow up those areas.
  • Fallow lands (bare or weedy soils) will convert to planned crop covers, such as ‘cover crops’, multi-cropping, etc.
  • Previously ungrazed croplands will institute grazing for at least part of the year over perennial forages or annual cover crops.
  • As a result, lands that were used to grow animal feeds (corn, soy..) can be reduced, while those used to produce crops for human consumption can increase.
  • Chemical fertilizers will be reduced and supplemented by cover crops, animal manures,  improved soil biology, innoculants, etc.
  • Pesticides (herbicides, insecticides, etc.) will be reduced or obviated by natural farming (regenerative, or ‘agro-ecological’) methods.  Balanced natural ecosystems generally require little or no pesticides.

The following Schedule is pragmatic, and optimistic.  It is very incomplete – only a few of the many planning variables are presented, as illustration. These kinds of changes would require a very dedicated mobilization of resources and participation, and a willingness to abandon the status quo in many respects.  But the benefits would be incalculable. 

The shift from Conventional to Regenerative farming could be 50% initiated within a couple years.  As mentioned before, the benefits begin as soon as industrial crops and chemicals are halted, cover crops are introduced, and the land is allowed to start healing.  This can be started immediately.

In the first year:

• Notify the industry that all subsidies to unsustainable farm operations will be suspended – these  changes could start to execute in year 2.
• Reduce tilled areas.  Add buffers, etc, beginning with riparian areas as a top priority.
• Initiate basin, or area-wide plans – a 3 year process to complete first phase.  Compile all necessary base mapping layers – habitat / species / land use and land cover, etc.  in year 1 —  from existing info resources.
  • Map all relevant farm features, such as tile drains, drainage ditches, processing areas, waste and chemical storage, in year 1.  See Vermont examples for detail.
• Subsidize regenerative processes
  • Design and implement cover crops in the fall of year 1. In general, no soil surfaces should stay exposed for long periods.
  • Design all grazing infrastructure and rough grazing plans for individual farms, to be implemented starting year 2.
  • Design and start to implement regenerative and Best Management Practices – BMP’s for all participating farms. 

Longer term actions:

• Drop all subsidies to concentrated animal feed operations – CAFOS – 3 year process.
• Subsidize and support rural development (USDA/RD) – 3 year process to fully initiate.
• Redesign the regulatory framework from conventional to regenerative methods – 3 year process.
• Shift funding from individual farm contracts to universal programs and strategies – 3 year process (see Ch.5 for details).
• Institute a national Crop Genetic Conservation Program on an emergency basis, year 1 (USDA/ARS and NRCS). This includes a national grow-out program (aka: ‘in situ’) similar to the BLM strategy for conserving/developing native plants resources.
• De-subsidize GMO crops and related chemicals (glyphosate, neonics, etc).  Shift subsidies to support rare, endangered, heirloom, heritage, native, local, and threatened varieties in the public or private domain.  Implement these changes starting year 2.
• Phase out all hazardous chemicals, especially highly toxic, persistent systemic residuals, such as ‘neonics’, in 2 years.
• Decrease the acceptable thresholds for soil erosion (‘T’) by 10% per year, towards sustainable levels.  Subsidize and regulate these changes.
• Institute a program to map and manage tile drains on farmlands and food processing facilities.  All emissions from tile drains should meet water quality standards by year 3.

The above changes are not comprehensive, but are intended to give a rough idea of the time frame for shifting to sustainable practices, with a focus on agriculture. Without mobilization and a collective approach, these kinds of changes can take decades. On the other hand, under a war time footing, they can happen in months, as we have seen with the crisis in Ukraine. Neither months nor decades are desirable, but a rapid and smooth transition is possible under circumstances suggested in this website.

Please share these ideas, post your comments, and stay tuned for further developments.

Ch8—TheTimeFrame.doc