From the ground up

A relentless series of destructive extreme weather events last year has staggered farmers and taken a toll on state governments around the country. From Hurricanes Harvey and Irma hitting parts of the south to droughts and wildfires in the Midwest to heatwaves in the West, farmers and rural communities are struggling to recover.

It is difficult to attribute any single weather event to climate change, but the rise in the number of extreme weather events, and the increase in their severity, are consistent with what the science tells us to expect from climate change. This year is on track to be one of the costliest in terms of weather-related damage in American history, consistent with the long-term upward trend in the number of extreme weather events costing more than one billion dollars, according to the National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration (NOAA).

State governments are finding themselves on the front lines of responding to climate change, including the immediate and long-term effects on agriculture. These climate-related effects drain state government budgets and cause enormous financial and emotional harm to farmers and rural communities.

The severity of climate-related impacts will depend largely on how our farming systems respond to changes in local conditions. Climate adaptation plans, when implemented, can lower costs for local governments and lower risks for farmers and agriculture-related businesses — and potentially create new markets for businesses and farmers. The urgency to act on climate change is leading governments and businesses all over the world to develop climate adaptation plans.

At the international level, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommends that climate adaptation planning be place- and context-specific, with no single approach for reducing risks across all settings. In the U.S., the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators (NCEL) has been a leader in promoting state-based climate adaptation, because no two states or communities will experience climate change in exactly the same way.

Unfortunately, too many states don’t have climate adaptation plans and those that do often do not include agriculture. Currently, only 18 states have climate adaptation plans that include agriculture. Of those 18, recommendations on agriculture are too often general and aspirational, disconnected from the policies or resources required to follow-up on and implement them. There are also some exceptions and examples of truly innovative thinking at the state-level that other states can learn from.

In this paper, we analyze how state climate adaptation plans treat agriculture and food systems, identify challenges and best practices and lift-up innovative approaches for the future. To conduct the analysis, we cataloged every state with a climate adaptation plan that makes concrete recommendations for agricultural adaptation. We created a list of every agriculture-related policy proposal in each state plan and sorted those strategies into ten categories based on our best interpretation of their goals. We pulled from eight strategies identified by the USDA in the 2016 report “Adaptation Resources for Agriculture,” and added two additional categories we identified as important, covering financial support and technical assistance.

Key Findings

A few important trends stand out in state climate adaptation plans.

1. Few states are considering ambitious changes to their agricultural systems, such as changing crop types to fit the altered climate or using new approaches to animal production.
2. Locally focused adaptation strategies with less daunting scopes, such as those focused on soil and water quality, have gained traction.
3. Strategies designed to support farmers with technical and financial support for climate adaptation are well-represented.
4. Very little attention is given to biodiversity, how to “manage farms and fields as part of a larger landscape,” a potentially powerful tool in the face of climate change.
5. Investing in agriculture-related infrastructure as part of climate adaptation is similarly under-represented.

Challenges Moving Forward

States have an opportunity to lead on climate policy and particularly on adaptation. States can proactively engage their citizens in climate resilience strategies for their communities and economies and work with farmers to adapt agricultural systems for the future. This analysis of state climate adaptation plans revealed several key challenges for states:

1. There is an implementation hurdle after adaptation plans are written. Adaptation plans can transition directly from the writing process to the shelf if not supported by state agency action and policy.
2. Adequate financial resources and institutional support mechanisms are needed. To ensure a successful and just transition to climate resilient agricultural systems, resources and support must be available. Farmers often operate on razor thin profit margins, making independent adaptation action difficult.
3. States are not ready to include strategies that involve the significant altering of agricultural systems to new climate conditions. Careful thinking and planning on these bigger issues will be necessary for future climate adaptation plans.
4. Political resistance to climate action must be overcome. States should increase engagement with farmers and rural communities as partners in adaptation planning now. Taking the time to ensure farmers are engaged early on and have input in the development of climate adaptation plans is essential to a successful plan.
5. States that lack adaptation plans entirely need to begin preparing. As the costs of inaction on climate adaption rise, states will be forced to start planning.

The weather events of the last year highlight how states that continue to ignore climate adaptation will end up paying the price. Farmers in every state are dealing with a variety of climate-related changes, some immediate and others long-term. States can learn from past experience, and each other, by engaging with farmers and rural communities to build climate resilience into future planning.

Part 1: Introduction: Agriculture’s Climate Risk

A relentless series of destructive, extreme weather events this year has staggered farmers and taken a toll on state governments around the country:

• Hurricane Harvey caused an estimated $200 million in agricultural losses when it left Texas cotton hanging from trees, cattle huddled on high ground, and much of the state’s hay crop underwater.
• Hurricane Irma’s agriculture losses are an estimated $2.5 billion, including wiping out about half of Florida’s citrus crop.
• A severe drought followed by extensive wildfires in the Dakotas and Montana forced many farmers to sell off cattle and resulted in extensive crop losses in the country’s biggest wheat region.
• Severe heat in California’s avocado-raising regions last year caused a shortfall this year, while a June heatwave in the state resulted in an estimated 4,000–6,000 dead cows.
• Wildfires swept through Kansas, Oklahoma, Colorado and Texas in March, burning up an estimated 660,000 acres of pasture, and killing an estimated 20,000 pigs and cattle.
• Feedyards in Kansas, Colorado, Texas and Nebraska were hit with a blizzard in April that caused thousands of cattle deaths.
• Spring floods damaged an estimated 940,000 acres of crops in Arkansas.

It is difficult to attribute any single weather event to climate change, but the rise in the number of extreme weather events, and an increase in their severity, are consistent with what the science tells us about climate change. According to the U.S. National Climate Assessment, climate-related disruptions have increased steadily over the last 40 years and are expected to rise further in the future. This year is on track to be one of the costliest in terms of weather-related damage, consistent with the long-term upward trend in the number of extreme weather events costing more than one billion dollars, according to NOAA.

State governments are finding themselves on the front lines of responding to these weather disasters, including those that affect farmers. These disasters can drain state government budgets, but as importantly cause enormous financial and emotional harm to farmers and rural communities. When a farm faces drought, wildfires or a flood, it is not just their livelihood that is affected; it is often also their home, land, animals and their communities.

Aside from an increase in disasters, climate change is already affecting agriculture. In the Midwest and Northeastern states for example, temperatures have already risen across all seasons, growing seasons have become longer and there have been more extreme precipitation events in frequency and severity, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

An October 2016 USDA report on climate adaptation identified these major risks to agriculture based on future climate trends:

• Extreme precipitation increases risk of damage to crops, soils and infrastructure;
• Increase in flood damage to agricultural land and production;
• Severe wind and storm hazards could affect crops, land and infrastructure;
• Warmer temperatures increase the potential for soil moisture stress and drought;
• Competition from weeds and invasive plant species may increase;
• Populations of damaging insects may increase;
• The risk of plant pathogens may rise; and
• The risk of pressure from pathogens and parasites of livestock may rise.

These climate-related risks are in addition to other challenges farmers face, including volatile markets that often pay below-cost-of-production prices and increased corporate concentration that is leading to diminished competition in most agriculture sectors. The severity of climate-related impacts will depend largely on how our farming systems respond to changes in local conditions. These responses, whether short-term or long-term, are climate adaptation strategies, and, like most strategies, they are stronger if part of a larger, coordinated plan. Climate adaptation strategies for agriculture could include adjusting planting patterns, using more resilient crops, or changing livestock management. Shifts in weather patterns, the timing of pollination and precipitation will require shifts in agricultural production — with different crops being affected differently.

While innovative farmers may adapt in the short-term, over the long-term, more transformational strategies focused on resilience in agricultural systems will be needed. Those strategies will have to be supported by a new, broad-reaching policy framework that includes farm financing and credit, research and technical assistance, insurance and conservation programs and other rural development initiatives. Part of withstanding weather disruptions is the ability to withstand them financially. Climate risk will be added to the other risks, particularly economic, that farmers already face.

Part 2: Why Climate Adaptation Plans Matter

At a very basic level, climate adaptation plans help prepare for the future. Many researchers view agricultural climate adaptation as a series of actions that begin by addressing short-term, immediate needs and build toward more transformational changes over time. Activities can fall into two areas: managing production within the existing system and managing the changes that are coming, including changes to the system. Both strategies can exist simultaneously. Climate adaptation plans should help lower costs for local governments, lower risks for farmers and agricultural-related businesses and possibly create new markets for businesses and farmers. These types of plans can be done at the community, regional, state or national level. And they can be done by individual businesses or within sectors.

The severity of climate change is leading governments and businesses all over the world to develop climate adaptation plans. Much of the business and investment community is taking proactive steps to assess their climate risk, such as how changes in the climate affect their future business and investments. The nonprofit organization CERES is actively working with investors and companies to analyze and rate food companies’ risk associated with sustainability, including climate risk. National business leaders Michael Bloomberg, Henry Paulson and Tom Steyer co-chaired a committee that included Cargill Chairman Gregory Page on the Economic Risks of Climate Change to the U.S. Their 2014 report, Risky Business, concluded that without adaptation, many Midwestern and Southern states could see a decline in crop yields of more than 10 percent over the next 5 to 25 years. The report also emphasized that each region of the country is different, with its own culture and economy, and as such, “we must take a regional approach to fully understand our climate risk.”

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), adaptation plans are becoming more common among governments. Given that the effects of climate change are complex and difficult to predict, governments have partnered with universities, businesses and stakeholders to share information and resources, identify gaps and develop plans across sectors. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization has developed indicators for governments to assess their climate adaptation strategies for agriculture.

The IPCC also makes clear that climate adaptation planning is place and context specific, with no single approach for reducing risks across all settings. However, the IPCC has identified some principles for effective climate adaptation:

• Planning and adaptation can be enhanced through complementary actions across levels, from individuals to governments;
• A first step is to reduce vulnerability and exposure, identifying actions with co-benefits;
• Recognition of diverse interests, circumstances, social-cultural contexts and expectations benefit the decision-making process;
• Poor planning, overemphasizing short-term outcomes, or failing to sufficiently anticipate consequences can result in poor adaptation; and
• Significant co-benefits, synergies and trade-offs, exist between mitigation (greenhouse gas reduction) and adaptation.

Consistent with this call for regionally focused strategies, states are uniquely positioned to act on climate, particularly in the case of agriculture-related climate adaptation. Farming is literally dependent on the local and regional geography, and as a result, policy and strategy frameworks for climate adaptation must be built from the ground up.

The NCEL has been a leader in promoting state-based climate adaptation. In a 2014 report, NCEL wrote that states are the appropriate forum for climate adaptation because no two states or communities will experience climate change in exactly the same way: “States no longer have a choice to adapt to climate change, as these conditions will continue and intensify for decades even if aggressive greenhouse gas mitigation is successful. … Adaptation must be timely, swift and effective.”

Many farmers are already taking steps to adapt to a changing climate. Many of these strategies have long been part of sustainable practices, and are now being reintegrated and in some cases reinvented in our current context. A growing number of farmers are focusing on building soil health so that it better holds water, adjusting their planting patterns, managing grazing, using cover crops and practicing no-till farming. Recent research has found that cover crops or perennial crops can help create spongy soil that better retains water. Other adaption strategies include reintroducing an integrated crop-livestock system.

Many climate adaptation strategies have multiple benefits, such as soil health improvement, water quality protection, wildlife habitat management or greenhouse gas mitigation. For example, the use of cover crops can help increase carbon sequestration, while strengthening adaptation. The use of tree cover for livestock can also help sequester carbon.

Additionally, climate adaptation plans at the community and city level in the U.S. are gaining traction. The National Adaptation Forum hosts a series of forums around the country on best practices for climate adaption planning. IATP and the Jefferson Center have pioneered a Rural Climate Dialogue model for community-level engagement on climate and adaption planning.

Legislation and policy to support greater agricultural resilience to climate change is critical. While small-in-number, a handful of states, including Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Vermont, have introduced bills to support farming practices that build soil health. California has a Healthy Soils Program that incentivizes practices that sequester carbon and reduce GHG emissions and a state heat protection law to protect agricultural workers. New York’s budget this year included a study on incentives for farmers to increase soil health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

But a “policy by policy” approach can be disjointed and fail to build upon larger synergies and strategies. Broader climate adaptation plans offer the opportunity for meaningful engagement with farmers and the rural communities where they live. Stakeholder participation in the development of climate adaptation plans is essential. Stakeholders know the landscape and local economy and can assess whether a proposed strategy will work in the community without unintended consequences. Perhaps most importantly, stakeholder engagement is critical because they are the citizens who are most affected and whose help is most essential to ensure implementation.

Unfortunately, too many states don’t have climate adaptation plans. And those that do often do not include agriculture; currently only 18 states have climate adaptation plans that include agriculture. Of those 18, many include only very general recommendations that are disconnected from policy or the resources for state agencies to follow-up on and implement them. There are also some exceptions and examples of truly innovative thinking at the state-level that should be more widely adopted.

In this paper, we analyze how state climate adaptation plans treat agriculture and food systems, identify challenges and best practices, and lift-up innovative approaches for the future.

Part 3: Methodology

To conduct the analysis, we cataloged every state with a climate adaptation plan that makes concrete recommendations for agricultural adaptation (18 states in total). Then, we created a list of every agriculture-related policy proposal in each state plan, and sorted those policies into ten categories based on our best interpretation of their goals. This categorization revealed the type and number of adaptation strategies recommended by individual states and what strategies are most commonly identified among states.

The ten adaptation strategies we used for our analysis are composed of eight strategies identified by the USDA in the 2016 report “Adaptation Resources for Agriculture,” as well as two additional categories we identified as important. The eight USDA categories encompass a variety of responses to threats that climate change poses to agriculture. The ninth and tenth categories are our own creation, intended to cover the important adaptation measures of financial and technical assistance. We refer to this set of ten strategies as the USDA+ categories. They are as follows:

A few limitations to this evaluation approach should be noted. First, in cataloguing the state plans, all recommendations within their “agriculture” sections were included. We also included recommendations in other sections that referred to food or agriculture.

Second, it is difficult to compare policy proposals across states as they can differ greatly in scope and specificity. We have partially accounted for this by allowing broad policies to be counted in multiple categories, but there is still uncertainty in how broader policies will be interpreted and implemented. As a result, the quantitative results of this paper should not be understood in overly specific terms. They provide useful insight into which sectors of adaptation the states are pursuing and which they are not, but should not be taken as exact measures for comparing different categories, or for comparing different states. Furthermore, because of climate variation between states, gaps in certain categories will be more significant in some states than in others.

A third challenge is that most of these plans are voluntary, so there is great variation in how they are implemented. The goal of this paper is to analyze how comprehensively each state’s climate adaptation plans address agriculture-related climate adaptation challenges, but the existence of a plan does not mean it will be implemented well.

Fourth, the term “climate adaptation plan” itself is subjective. For example, some states have climate adaptation plans that do not pay significant attention to agriculture, but they may have other agriculture-specific policy papers. In such cases (e.g. Vermont), we used the agricultural adaptation policy paper. In other cases (e.g. Wisconsin), states produced reports that were not technically “climate adaptation plans,” but which evaluated the dangers posed by climate change to the state with suggestions of adaptation polices noted. We counted such reports in lieu of a full climate adaptation plan.

Finally, several states suggest adaptation policies for fisheries management. Because fisheries management is not a part of the USDA categories, and because it only applies to the few states in which fish are a significant aspect of food production, we decided not to include it as its own category. Instead, we added a note crediting each state that included fish related policies.

Part 4: The States: Trends and Findings

A. General trends among the 18 States.

In our analysis of climate adaptation plans, a few important trends stand out.

1. Few states are considering ambitious changes to adapt their agricultural systems or lands to new climate conditions. Strategies to shift farming systems, including new crops, to new climate conditions were rare or non-existent among states. These large-scale, transformative changes will be needed in the long run, but, possibly due to their cost, complexity, and scale, they are absent in most adaptation plans.
2. Locally focused adaptation strategies with less daunting scopes have gained traction. For instance, strategies for preserving soil and water quality, recommendations that offer tangible, short-term benefits to agricultural production and can be implemented by each farm independently, were included in every plan.
3. The two strategies designed to support farmers with technical and financial support for climate adaptation are well-represented in state adaptation plans. Solutions such as institutional and technical support and coordination policies, had the highest average number of recommended strategies per state.
4. Very little attention by most states to biodiversity or how to “manage farms and fields as part of a larger landscape.” The ecosystem benefits provided by preserving native habitats and biodiversity will be a powerful tool in the face of climate change, but they are being largely ignored by states.
5. Infrastructure is similarly under represented. Rural infrastructure overall is already woefully underfunded, and agriculture-specific infrastructure is no exception. Most states had few strategies related to agricultural infrastructure and climate adaptation.

B. Challenges Moving Forward

States have an opportunity to lead on climate policy, and particularly on adaptation. States can proactively engage their citizens and farmers in protecting their communities and economies, and to begin building the agricultural systems of the future. This analysis revealed several key challenges that states should consider:

1. There is an implementation barrier after adaptation plans are written. The Alaska and Wisconsin experiences reveal how quickly an adaptation plan can transition from the writing process to the shelf if not supported by state agency action and policy. California provides an example of a plan that was implemented well and has successfully monitored its progress.
2. Adequate financial resources and institutional support mechanisms must be provided to ensure a successful and just transition to climate-resilient agricultural systems. Farmers often operate on razor thin profit margins, making it difficult for them to independently undertake climate adaptation. Though our analyses found consistent and promising attention to financing strategies, the need for additional support is apparent.
3. States are not ready to include strategies that involve the significant altering of agricultural systems to new climate conditions. These types of longer-term, structural strategies were often not included in state plans. Careful thinking and planning on some of these bigger issues will be necessary for future climate adaptation plans. Possible strategies offered by the USDA include efforts to minimize the impact of climate disturbances, such as: “Seed short-term cover crops to protect and stabilize soils [after extreme weather].” Other policies require more drastic changes, for example in the location of production or the type of crop in production: “Shift agricultural production spatially, matching commodities to areas with better climate conditions or water availability” and “Convert agricultural lands to new commodities based upon altered climatic conditions, such as converting row crops to perennial forage where water availability decreases.”
4. Political resistance to climate action must be overcome. Though this problem goes far beyond the scope of agricultural adaptation, states should increase engagement with farmers and rural communities as partners in adaptation planning now. Farmers and rural communities are often more open to discussions on climate adaptation than mitigation. Taking the time to ensure farmers are engaged early on and have input in the development of climate adaptation plans is essential. Farmers have knowledge that is essential to a successful plan, and they are, after all, experts on implementation.
5. States that lack adaptation plans entirely need to begin preparing. As the costs of inaction on climate adaption rise, states will be forced to start planning. The sooner the better. States in the southeast and Great Plains will be hit hard by rising temperatures, but have the fewest adaptation plans between them.

As the last year’s weather events highlight, states that ignore climate adaptation will end up paying the price. Farmers in every state are dealing with a variety of climate-related changes, some immediate and others long-term. States should learn from past experience, and each other, by engaging with farmers and rural communities to build climate resilience into future planning. There are some good models and initiatives out there to guide the bold action that is needed.

From the Ground Up