The Triple Threat: Our Food, Water and Climate Challenges

By Shiney Varghese*, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, May 14, 2008

Food prices rose 4 percent in the United States last year, the highest rise since 1990. All over the world food prices are on the rise. At the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank finance ministers wanted to focus the world’s attention on food crisis rather than the credit crisis.

There are many factors contributing to this current crisis, including the rising price of oil, deregulated agricultural markets, financial speculation, and biofuels. Another key factor is climate change, which is affecting crop yield and food production. It is time for us to get serious about understanding the way climate change affects water resources for food production and conversely the way agricultural water use is leading to climate change.

In January, scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in the U.S. published an article in the journal Science that said what many climate change experts had already been saying for some time: global warming is responsible for the extreme changes that we see in the hydrological cycle in the western U.S. Moreover, the scientists from Scripps found that up to 60 percent of the climate-related trends of river flow, winter air temperature and snow pack between 1950 and 1999 are human-induced.

While the Scripps scientists analyzed data for the western United States, similar changes have been happening around the world in the second half of the twentieth century. The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) found that “climate and freshwater systems are interconnected in complex ways and that any change in one of these systems induces a change in the other.”

The IPCC further concluded that the changes in precipitation patterns and glacier melts are projected to significantly affect water availability for an entire range of socially valued water uses, including human consumption, agriculture and energy generation. The most dramatic effect of climate change is likely to be on agricultural production. The impact is already manifesting itself in countries such as Australia. The global price of wheat hit its highest level in decades in December, partly due to Australia’s drought. Irrigated agriculture accounts for almost 70 percent of world water withdrawals and close to 90 percent of the total consumptive water use (the portion that is lost to the immediate environment for use). Existing irrigation and drainage infrastructures have been designed for stable climate conditions. They are very likely inadequate to cope with extreme climatic variations in precipitation and reduced water supply reliability and availability, as well as floods.

On the other hand, since irrigation accounts for such a large percentage of total water withdrawals, any reduction in irrigation water use (either through introducing water use efficient technologies or through changing agroecological practices) will go a long way in coping with climate-related water stress especially, in water-stressed regions.

While irrigated agriculture accounts for 40 percent of global food production, the remaining 60 percent of world’s food crops are produced by those practicing rain-fed agriculture. Such agriculture covers more than 80 percent of global agricultural land. In these regions, particularly those without local water conservation measures, crop productivity depends solely on sufficient precipitation to meet both evaporative demand and soil moisture needs. Any variation in precipitation patterns and temperature increases can affect crop productivity substantially.

The IPCC predicts that in some countries, “yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent by 2020.” This would most certainly affect food security in many communities and nations. But it is not only that climate change-related water stress will affect agriculture. The converse is also true: current water use patterns and associated practices contribute to climate change.

It is noteworthy that the two sectors in the world that use the most water, chemical intensive agriculture and fossil fuel-based energy production, are also the biggest contributors to global warming, which in turn further increases water stress in many regions.

For example, agriculture, as it is practiced now, sequesters much less carbon than it used to because of land use changes. A recent report by Greenpeace, “Cool Farming: Climate Impacts of Agriculture and Mitigation Potential,” found that “industrial, chemical-intensive agriculture degrades the soil and destroys the resources that are critical to storing carbon, such as forests and other vegetation.”

There are a number of ways in which national agricultural, trade and energy policies affect both water resources of a nation and climate change at the global level. Let us take a brief look at irrigated agriculture. Irrigation water use increased dramatically in most parts of the world in the second half of 20th century. This was abetted by the building of massive water systems including dams, reservoirs, aqueducts, pipelines and canals that brought water to otherwise water scarce regions.

This growth in irrigated agriculture is part of an unprecedented expansion of chemical intensive agriculture that was originally sold as a way to feed the world and also to increase export earnings through commodity-based trade. The pursuit of export-led growth in agriculture has also been dependent on intensive use of fossil fuel-based chemical inputs, contributing greatly to climate change.

In addition, the transport of agricultural commodities around the world and intensive agricultural practices (such as confined animal feedlots and indiscriminate fertilizer-use) also contributes to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. According to the World Bank’s 2008 report on agriculture, intensive agriculture directly contributes about half of the global emissions of two of the most potent non-carbon dioxide GHGs: “Nitrous oxide emissions from soils (from fertilizer application and manures) and methane from enteric fermentation in livestock production.”

Each account for about one-third of the farm sector’s total non-carbon dioxide emissions and are projected to rise with increased meat consumption becoming a norm in emerging economies.

Agricultural practices geared towards growing export-oriented monoculture crops are chemical intensive and have resulted in high levels of pollution in local water systems. In addition, nitrogen used in fertilizers leaches into water courses increasing the indirect nitrous oxide emissions downstream. This model of production has intensified water use, both in terms of the water going into the growing of the commodities themselves, but also in terms of inter-basin water transfers.

Protecting our waters in local watersheds and wetlands and using them judiciously in support of local agricultural systems and livelihood practices, rather than continuing with the current strategy of promoting export-oriented, monoculture, industrial, water-guzzling agricultural systems, is key to reducing the water sector’s direct contributions to climate change. Moreover local practices that conserve and enhance local water availability to ensure resilience of rain-fed agricultural systems are necessary as an adaptation mechanism, to meet climate challenges and to help meet food security goals, two of the biggest challenges for developing countries today.

It is time to reevaluate our agricultural policies that promote water and energy intensive agriculture. We will have to make some major changes in our agriculture systems to address some of the upcoming climate challenges. Doing so will help us cope with extreme changes in the hydrological cycle and resultant food and water crises many communities and nations are sure to face. Effective and sustainable water management in agriculture in support of healthy food systems needs to be part of the climate solution.

*Shiney Varghese is a Senior Policy Analyst at the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.

ADB’s ‘climate change hypocrisy’ denounced by civil society groups

5 May, Madrid – Asian environmental and human rights groups branded today the Asian Development Bank as a “leading world emitter of climate change hypocrisy” for issuing calls for clean energy investments to fight global warming while extending massive funding support for dirty mega-coal projects in Asia.^[1]

“Commercially viable, sustainable energy solutions are ready to be deployed in Asia yet ADB’s money is going to monstrous coal projects such as the 4,000-MW Mundra Ultra Mega coal power project of the Indian corporate giant Tata,” said Red Constantino of the bank watchdog NGO Forum on the ADB. ^[2] ”The ADB is just a giant Asian smokestack spewing gigatons of climate nonsense,” Constantino said.

The ADB executed a loan agreement in April for a $450 million loan to Coastal Gujarat Power Limited (CGPL). The CGPL consortium is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tata Power, the largest private power utility in India. Tata Power is part of the global Tata Group conglomerate, which recently acquired luxury car brand Jaguar Land Rover.

Asia’s share of global greenhouse gas emissions is anticipated to grow to 42 percent by 2030. Currently, coal produces around 42 percent of Asia’s CO2 emissions each year. The ADB is also gearing up to channel financing towards the expansion of biofuel alternatives, increasingly seen today as a major driver aggravating the region’s agricultural and forest crisis.

“Agrofuels are not, cannot and should not be an answer to climate change. Neither are they an answer to strategic rural development needs,” said Longgena Ginting, campaigner of Friends of the Earth-International. “Agrofuels remove land utilized for domestic food production, they promote the expansion of industrial monoculture plantations and they displace entire peasant and indigenous communities merely to provide people in industrialized countries with the illusion that they are using supposedly ‘green’ fuel for their needs,” Ginting said.

The ADB is holding its 41st annual meeting in Madrid amidst the turmoil created by climate change and the region’s food crisis. The ADB’s recently released Long-Term Strategic Framework has been criticized by both NGOs and developing country governments for its failure to prioritize sustainable agriculture development and effective climate change mitigation and adaptation measures.^[3]

The NGO Forum on the ADB has been monitoring ADB operations since 1992. It is the largest network of civil society groups and community organizations in Asia. Friends of the Earth-International is the world’s largest grassroots environmental network, uniting 70 diverse national member groups and some 5,000 local activist groups on every continent.

For press inquiries please contact:

Jelson (+66-87951023;jgarcia@mekong.bicusa.org), Romil (+63-9166480975;romilhernandez@yahoo.com) or Ronald (+63-9175163843;ronald@forum-adb.org).

^[1] http://www.adb.org/Media/Articles/2008/12471-asian-clean-energies/default.asp

^[2] See: http://www.adb.org/Media/Articles/2008/12452-indian-electricities-projects/

^[3] ”Food crises rises to forefront at AsDB sessions,” Marwaan Macan-Markar, Interpress Service, 04 May 2008.  See: http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42226

The tide turns against biofuels

TheRealNews, April 24, 2008

As biofuel production booms, concerns grow about food supply.

Powering past fossil fuels

TheRealNews, April 27, 2008

“We are stuck in a paradigm of energy generation that is two centuries old”

World Bank “Playing Both Sides of Climate Crisis”

By Haider Rizvi, Inter Press Service (IPS), April 10, 2008

NEW YORK - A new study released by an independent policy think tank casts further doubts on the World Bank’s ability to stay neutral in the global politics of climate change.

“It is making money off of causing the climate crisis and then turning around and claiming to solve it,” charged Janet Redman, the study’s lead author and a researcher at the Institute for Policy Studies.

In releasing the 79-page report Thursday, Redman described the World Bank’s role in the so-called carbon markets as “dangerously counterproductive” to international efforts to tackle climate change.

Carbon markets refer to commercial aspects of environmental responsibility, in which energy companies can either agree to cut carbon emissions or buy the right to keep polluting.

The report, entitled “World Bank: Climate Profiteer”, shows that instead of encouraging clean energy investors, the bank is lending much of its financial support to the fossil fuel industry.

“It’s playing both sides of the climate crisis,” said Redman, noting that in just past two years the bank loaned no less than 1.5 billion dollars to companies investing in fossil fuels.

The scientific community has repeatedly warned that drastic reduction in the use of oil, gas, and coal is a must to avoid the catastrophic effects of climate change.

The bank claims it is an “honest broker” of carbon deals, but the study’s authors say their findings do not validate that assertion.

“With little transparency around its credits and no formal accounting for its carbon debits that are accruing thanks to the World Bank loans,” said Redman, “it is hard to say.”

The study’s findings show that out of its two-billion-dollar carbon finance portfolio, the bank has directed nearly 80 percent to projects involving the coal, chemical, iron, and steel industries.

By contrast, critics say, it has not invested any significant amount of money in projects aiming to sustainably reduce poverty. Currently, the bank’s Community Development Carbon Fund (CDCF) and the Biocarbon Fund have a total capital of 219 million dollars, which constitutes only 10 percent of the total carbon-related funding at its disposal.

“The bank finances a fossil fuel project in Poor Country A. Rich Country B asks the bank to help arrange carbon credits so Country B can tell its carbon counters it’s taking serious action on climate change,” said Dephane Wysham, who worked with Redman on the report.

“It kindly obliges, offering credits for a price far lower than Country B would have to pay if Country B made those cuts at home,” Wysham explained. “Country A gets a share of the cash to invest in equipment to make the fossil fuel project slightly more efficient.”

“The bank takes its 13 percent cut, and everyone is happy,” she said.

Among numerous other examples that illustrate the bank’s questionable practices, the report’s authors also mention its plans to fund a massive coal-fired power plant in Mundra, a town in the Indian state of Gujarat.

The complex of five 800-megawatt plants will cost 4.14 billion dollars to build, and will be owned and operated by Tata Group, India’s largest multinational corporation.

Tata Motors, a division of the same conglomerate, recently announced plans to buy the luxury car companies Jaguar and Range Rover from U.S. automaker Ford for 2.3 billion dollars. Tata Power’s 2007 revenues totaled 1.6 billion dollars. “It’s hard not to ask how much help Tata needs from the World Bank,” said Wysham.

Once operational, the Mundra power plant will be India’s third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases. The bank, according to the report’s authors, is also willing to give carbon credits to Tata for its coal burner.

Wysham calls it a “bizarre logic of the market”.

“[It’s] a market where Country B can get credits for helping a corporation,” she said, “even one of the world’s wealthiest corporations such as Tata, capture a few emissions, as long as they are captured in a ‘poor’ country, like India, regardless of how rich the company involved may be.”

The report also explains at length how the bank’s policy on carbon credits is affecting indigenous communities who have no say in projects aimed at reforestation.

“Trading forest carbon credits has become a burgeoning business,” said Redman, noting that the bank is “encouraging” a land-use shift from subsistence agricultural cultivation to agro-industrial forestry.

The report’s authors said a document leaked from the Bank in January suggests that it seeks to further expand its role in the carbon market with multi-billion-dollar plans for investment in so-called “climate adaptation” and forestry.

“This usurpation of authorities on these funds flies in the face of Bali agreement,” said Redman. At the U.N. climate change conference held in Bali, Indonesia, last December, developing countries said they must be allowed to have oversight on such funds, and they won.

“The new climate funds,” in her view, “institute a donor-driven governee structure that leaves developing countries without a voice.”