Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

Accept Deny

GoGreenNation news

Hawaii Has Gone Down Under for Invasive Species Advice – Again

News Feed
Tuesday, September 24, 2024

A delegation of Hawaii lawmakers and officials recently returned from a more than $50,000 visit to New Zealand seeking ways the state could better shield itself from invasive species – advice it failed to heed almost two decades ago.The South Pacific nation had originally offered suggestions during a similar trip in 2006, but it it was not until this year that Hawaii invested millions of dollars into biosecurity to battle swarms of fire ants and coconut rhinoceros beetles.That investment follows months of public outcry over the inaction and inability to contain the pests, which threaten to irreversibly harm the environment and economy.Over five days, 17 people – five legislators and representatives of four state departments – visited New Zealand’s capital, Wellington, and its largest city, Auckland, to tour ports, airports and biosecurity facilities. New Zealand is recognized worldwide for its biosecurity program, one started more than 30 years ago. The country’s multi-layered program – with a budget of about NZ$418 million ($260 million in U.S. dollars) – begins off the country’s shores and includes the borders, mail centers and ports, as well as detection, response and management of pests in the country. New Zealand has a minister of biosecurity, a cabinet-level position.The country has already eradicated some invasive species on 100 islands and is in the midst of a government-run campaign to rid the main islands of rats, ferrets, weasels and possums by 2050. Its approach to biosecurity represents “the gold standard,” said Hawaii Rep. Kristin Kahaloa, vice-chair of House food and agriculture committee, who joined the recent trip.By comparison, Hawaii’s biosecurity measures have fallen short despite the long history of invasive species here, which led the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife to designate the state “the endangered species capital of the world.”The state Department of Agriculture, which oversees the program, has faced increased scrutiny since the beginning of 2023, when the beetles spread statewide – destroying coconut palms and eating through some native crops – and the stinging little fire ants became entrenched on Oahu, dissuading some from using public spaces to avoid being stung.Lawmakers responded during the 2024 legislative session by injecting $10 million into specific biosecurity programs. Another $3 million was added to the state agriculture agency’s biosecurity budget, bringing it to $9.2 million.In 2017, the state estimated that it would need to invest $37.8 million every year until 2027 to fully implement a comprehensive Hawaii Interagency Biosecurity Program. Department of Agriculture deputy director Dexter Kishida, part of the delegation, says the additional trip to New Zealand was intended to help lawmakers, his department and others formulate stronger, smarter plans to stem the tide of invasive species. “Otherwise we keep throwing money at CRB, LFA or whatever the next thing is,” Kishida said, using shorthand for coconut rhinoceros beetles and little fire ants.The agriculture department paid approximately $50,000 for the visit, which covered its staff, the legislators and two legislative staffers’ trips, Kishida said. Leeward Community College and the departments of transportation, education and business paid for their own delegates.Sen. Donovan Dela Cruz shared takeaways from the trip in an email newsletter last Wednesday. They included fostering more collaboration among government agencies, creating pathways to new jobs in biosecurity and increasing public awareness.Those are not new ideas, nor are they new to Hawaii. But they now have broad support from key legislators. Paying The High Price Of Inaction More than 20 years ago Hawaii’s invasive species community called for the state’s inaugural biosecurity plan to be modeled on New Zealand’s. Four years later a delegation visited the country to learn about its methods. The Hawaii Conservation Alliance then commissioned a review of the state’s biosecurity. The resulting 22-page treatise, known as “The Warren Report,” was published later that year.It stated that Hawaii was “paying a far higher price overall than necessary for the privilege (or obligation) of trading with a world that contains millions of organisms that are unable to move to Hawaii without human help.”Paula Warren, a senior policy advisor with New Zealand’s Department of Conservation, wrote the report and based her analysis on policies and interviews with government officials and state workers.“One of the people interviewed, when asked what improvements they would make to the biosecurity system, replied after some thought ‘We don’t have a biosecurity system to improve.’ That judgement is both accurate and unduly harsh,” Warren wrote.The 2006 report came to several conclusions, identifying inadequate resources, powers and public support among the causes for Hawaii’s invasive species problems. It found money was wasted on inefficient or ineffective programs, partly because decisions were made in silos. Warren created a long list of recommendations, too, such as better integrating non-governmental invasive species organizations.“It’s a matter of accepting that biosecurity is as large an issue to public safety as terrorism, and I don’t think your government understands that,” Warren told Honolulu Weekly in 2006. None of the lawmakers on the recent visit were in office when the report was published, nor were many of the other state workers in the delegation. Members of the environmental protection and invasive species community – which does the lion’s share of public outreach and research – were notably absent from the trip, too.But Carol Okada – who managed the Department of Agriculture Plant Quarantine Branch when Warren’s report was released in 2006 – was among this year’s delegates visiting New Zealand.Okada is not currently employed by the state and attended as a “community expert on port biosecurity,” Kishida said. She has faced intense criticism of her previous work with the department, dating back to the early 2000s, when several species that remain problems today first became established.That was when the agriculture department needed to embrace its ”role as a broad biosecurity agency that serves interests other than agriculture (notably biodiversity),” Warren wrote in her 2006 report. Warren believed biosecurity would get stronger because ”people want it to.”Among the species that Warren warned about in her report: little fire ants.“Let’s make sure the investments of money and time from these trips have merits,” Kane said. “What did we learn and how did we make changes here? Because if not, it’s just a vacation.”He spoke to his state representative, Sen. Chris Lee, when he returned from New Zealand. Kane said he was excited at the prospect of Lee introducing strong legislation to better help Waimanalo control invasive species. Moving Forward With A Plan to Protect Hawaii Lawmakers appear poised to better address biosecurity in Hawaii but New Zealand is different and its model cannot be copied verbatim.Its biosecurity budget is more than 10 times that of Hawaii’s. Its agriculture sector dwarfs Hawaii’s, with agricultural exports expected to be worth more than $30 billion in U.S. dollars this year. Hawaii’s agricultural sector generated about $700 million in 2022, according to the latest USDA census.Dela Cruz has already taken inspiration from several facets of New Zealand’s food system to use in his multimillion-dollar agricultural hub project in Central Oahu. The hub is planned as a one-stop shop for all things food and agriculture, essentially building out the infrastructure needed to help reinvigorate the state’s agricultural economy. That goal is to replicate the project across the islands.But without ”significant investments in our biosecurity” Hawaii’s biosecurity will not get the boost it needs, he wrote in his newsletter last week.Lee told Civil Beat that Hawaii and New Zealand may be different but they are ”more apples to apples than people realize,” as both are a collection of islands in the Pacific facing the same sources of risks.”There’s definitely an attitude out in the public that there’s nothing we can do about some of these invasive species,” the Senate transportation committee chair said. ”New Zealand’s model? That proves that that’s not true.”This story was originally published by Honolulu Civil Beat and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

A delegation of Hawaii lawmakers and officials recently returned from a more than $50,000 visit to New Zealand seeking ways the state could better shield itself from invasive species

A delegation of Hawaii lawmakers and officials recently returned from a more than $50,000 visit to New Zealand seeking ways the state could better shield itself from invasive species – advice it failed to heed almost two decades ago.

The South Pacific nation had originally offered suggestions during a similar trip in 2006, but it it was not until this year that Hawaii invested millions of dollars into biosecurity to battle swarms of fire ants and coconut rhinoceros beetles.

That investment follows months of public outcry over the inaction and inability to contain the pests, which threaten to irreversibly harm the environment and economy.

Over five days, 17 people – five legislators and representatives of four state departments – visited New Zealand’s capital, Wellington, and its largest city, Auckland, to tour ports, airports and biosecurity facilities. New Zealand is recognized worldwide for its biosecurity program, one started more than 30 years ago.

The country’s multi-layered program – with a budget of about NZ$418 million ($260 million in U.S. dollars) – begins off the country’s shores and includes the borders, mail centers and ports, as well as detection, response and management of pests in the country. New Zealand has a minister of biosecurity, a cabinet-level position.

The country has already eradicated some invasive species on 100 islands and is in the midst of a government-run campaign to rid the main islands of rats, ferrets, weasels and possums by 2050. Its approach to biosecurity represents “the gold standard,” said Hawaii Rep. Kristin Kahaloa, vice-chair of House food and agriculture committee, who joined the recent trip.

By comparison, Hawaii’s biosecurity measures have fallen short despite the long history of invasive species here, which led the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife to designate the state “the endangered species capital of the world.”

The state Department of Agriculture, which oversees the program, has faced increased scrutiny since the beginning of 2023, when the beetles spread statewide – destroying coconut palms and eating through some native crops – and the stinging little fire ants became entrenched on Oahu, dissuading some from using public spaces to avoid being stung.

Lawmakers responded during the 2024 legislative session by injecting $10 million into specific biosecurity programs. Another $3 million was added to the state agriculture agency’s biosecurity budget, bringing it to $9.2 million.

In 2017, the state estimated that it would need to invest $37.8 million every year until 2027 to fully implement a comprehensive Hawaii Interagency Biosecurity Program.

Department of Agriculture deputy director Dexter Kishida, part of the delegation, says the additional trip to New Zealand was intended to help lawmakers, his department and others formulate stronger, smarter plans to stem the tide of invasive species.

“Otherwise we keep throwing money at CRB, LFA or whatever the next thing is,” Kishida said, using shorthand for coconut rhinoceros beetles and little fire ants.

The agriculture department paid approximately $50,000 for the visit, which covered its staff, the legislators and two legislative staffers’ trips, Kishida said. Leeward Community College and the departments of transportation, education and business paid for their own delegates.

Sen. Donovan Dela Cruz shared takeaways from the trip in an email newsletter last Wednesday. They included fostering more collaboration among government agencies, creating pathways to new jobs in biosecurity and increasing public awareness.

Those are not new ideas, nor are they new to Hawaii. But they now have broad support from key legislators.

Paying The High Price Of Inaction

More than 20 years ago Hawaii’s invasive species community called for the state’s inaugural biosecurity plan to be modeled on New Zealand’s.

Four years later a delegation visited the country to learn about its methods. The Hawaii Conservation Alliance then commissioned a review of the state’s biosecurity. The resulting 22-page treatise, known as “The Warren Report,” was published later that year.

It stated that Hawaii was “paying a far higher price overall than necessary for the privilege (or obligation) of trading with a world that contains millions of organisms that are unable to move to Hawaii without human help.”

Paula Warren, a senior policy advisor with New Zealand’s Department of Conservation, wrote the report and based her analysis on policies and interviews with government officials and state workers.

“One of the people interviewed, when asked what improvements they would make to the biosecurity system, replied after some thought ‘We don’t have a biosecurity system to improve.’ That judgement is both accurate and unduly harsh,” Warren wrote.

The 2006 report came to several conclusions, identifying inadequate resources, powers and public support among the causes for Hawaii’s invasive species problems. It found money was wasted on inefficient or ineffective programs, partly because decisions were made in silos. Warren created a long list of recommendations, too, such as better integrating non-governmental invasive species organizations.

“It’s a matter of accepting that biosecurity is as large an issue to public safety as terrorism, and I don’t think your government understands that,” Warren told Honolulu Weekly in 2006.

None of the lawmakers on the recent visit were in office when the report was published, nor were many of the other state workers in the delegation. Members of the environmental protection and invasive species community – which does the lion’s share of public outreach and research – were notably absent from the trip, too.

But Carol Okada – who managed the Department of Agriculture Plant Quarantine Branch when Warren’s report was released in 2006 – was among this year’s delegates visiting New Zealand.

Okada is not currently employed by the state and attended as a “community expert on port biosecurity,” Kishida said. She has faced intense criticism of her previous work with the department, dating back to the early 2000s, when several species that remain problems today first became established.

That was when the agriculture department needed to embrace its ”role as a broad biosecurity agency that serves interests other than agriculture (notably biodiversity),” Warren wrote in her 2006 report. Warren believed biosecurity would get stronger because ”people want it to.”

Among the species that Warren warned about in her report: little fire ants.

“Let’s make sure the investments of money and time from these trips have merits,” Kane said. “What did we learn and how did we make changes here? Because if not, it’s just a vacation.”

He spoke to his state representative, Sen. Chris Lee, when he returned from New Zealand. Kane said he was excited at the prospect of Lee introducing strong legislation to better help Waimanalo control invasive species.

Moving Forward With A Plan to Protect Hawaii

Lawmakers appear poised to better address biosecurity in Hawaii but New Zealand is different and its model cannot be copied verbatim.

Its biosecurity budget is more than 10 times that of Hawaii’s. Its agriculture sector dwarfs Hawaii’s, with agricultural exports expected to be worth more than $30 billion in U.S. dollars this year. Hawaii’s agricultural sector generated about $700 million in 2022, according to the latest USDA census.

Dela Cruz has already taken inspiration from several facets of New Zealand’s food system to use in his multimillion-dollar agricultural hub project in Central Oahu. The hub is planned as a one-stop shop for all things food and agriculture, essentially building out the infrastructure needed to help reinvigorate the state’s agricultural economy. That goal is to replicate the project across the islands.

But without ”significant investments in our biosecurity” Hawaii’s biosecurity will not get the boost it needs, he wrote in his newsletter last week.

Lee told Civil Beat that Hawaii and New Zealand may be different but they are ”more apples to apples than people realize,” as both are a collection of islands in the Pacific facing the same sources of risks.

”There’s definitely an attitude out in the public that there’s nothing we can do about some of these invasive species,” the Senate transportation committee chair said. ”New Zealand’s model? That proves that that’s not true.”

This story was originally published by Honolulu Civil Beat and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.

Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Related News

Will Disaster Relief Come Through for North Carolina’s Small Farms?

After the storm subsided, DelCogliano fretted for hours until finally a text came through from an unknown number: “Farm flooded,” her husband, Gaelan Corozine, wrote. “I’m safe. Love you.” The next day, Corozine—who drove over 50 miles of washed-out roads to reunite with his family—told them that everything was gone. “We were all hugging and […] The post Will Disaster Relief Come Through for North Carolina’s Small Farms? appeared first on Civil Eats.

When Hurricane Helene ripped through North Carolina this September, Nicole DelCogliano sheltered with her two daughters in Asheville, while her husband rode out the storm alone on their 16-acre organic vegetable farm, Green Toe Ground, in nearby Yancey County. After the storm subsided, DelCogliano fretted for hours until finally a text came through from an unknown number: “Farm flooded,” her husband, Gaelan Corozine, wrote. “I’m safe. Love you.” The next day, Corozine—who drove over 50 miles of washed-out roads to reunite with his family—told them that everything was gone. Green Toe Ground farm in Yancey County, North Carolina, after Hurricane Helene. (Photo courtesy of Green Toe Ground) “We were all hugging and sobbing together,” DelCogliano later recalled, her voice quavering. Road closures blocked their return to the farm, so the family hiked over hills and hitched rides. Arriving there felt like seeing the aftermath of an earthquake, DelCogliano said. “The whole landscape was different, trees everywhere . . . barn rubble everywhere, our van on the side of the road and the tunnels a mess of plastic and metal.” Green Toe Ground Farm is nestled into a bend of the South Toe River, which crested at 30 feet above its normal height during Helene, inundating the farm. When the river ebbed from their fields, it took all their crops, scoured the topsoil from one field, and left sand deposits in two others. The storm destroyed their four high tunnels, two utility buildings, and barn. It swept away the potatoes, winter squash, and dried flowers for wreath-making, stored in the barn, and their 20-year-old horse, Star Darling, which they found wrapped in barbed wire and badly injured. Their home, which is set back from the river, was spared, though many neighbors weren’t so lucky, DelCogliano said. DelCogliano estimates they lost 30 percent of their annual revenue because the farm was fully planted. The infrastructure will cost $150,000 to replace, and tree removal and land grading will add further costs. All told, the storm will cost the family roughly $300,000. Green Toe Ground is one of many small, diversified farms serving local markets in western North Carolina that was devastated by Hurricane Helene. The full extent of regional agricultural damages is unknown, but “many [farms] have had 50 to 100 percent of their crops wiped out, infrastructure destroyed, and lots of topsoil loss and soil contamination from the flooding,” said Aaron Johnson, co-director of policy at the Rural Advancement Foundation International-USA (RAFI). Farmers who didn’t lose everything are struggling to find markets for crops that were spared.   “Every farm in our network will be impacted by the storm, either by direct damage or through loss of market outlets,” said Sarah Hart, communications coordinator at Appalachian Sustainable Agriculture Project (ASAP), a membership organization with 900 farms and 400 food businesses. A Limited Federal Safety Net In the storm’s immediate aftermath, neighbors offered DelCogliano a lifeline. “People came together to clear the roads, bring out chainsaws . . . help each other navigate basic food and water,” she said. “The only thing we had was each other.” Vermont farmers lost $44 million due to extreme weather in 2023, but received only $1.5 million in USDA relief funds. Over the short term, western North Carolina’s tight-knit food and farming community is helping farmers recover. RAFI, ASAP, and other groups are offering small grants and helping connect farmers to markets for products not destroyed by the flood, including relief organizations. Other organizations are raising money to pay farmers who have been donating products to relief groups. Wendy Burgh, co-owner of Dry Ridge Farm, a small poultry and livestock operation in Mars Hill, North Carolina, donated $4,000 worth of eggs the first week after the storm and was later repaid by Farm Connection. “Getting paid was a game changer, both emotionally and for the financial stability of the farm,” she said. Over the longer term, however, North Carolina farmers face a limited safety net to help them recoup losses and rebuild their operations. Charitable aid can only go so far. Some state aid is available for farmers, but the bulk of disaster assistance comes from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)—the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) covers personal losses only. Yet there are many obstacles to obtaining USDA relief, including onerous paperwork, low payouts, coverage exclusions, and a shortage of staff. Also, some of the agency’s emergency relief funds depend on ad hoc congressional approval, which means payments can arrive years after a disaster. What’s more, USDA’s federal crop insurance, commodity support, and disaster relief programs were designed for, and largely benefit, big commodity-crop growers. “Most farmers in the United States are small or mid-sized family farmers, but these are the producers that are left behind from the USDA programs that are supposed to help in the aftermath of disaster,” said Billy Hackett, a policy specialist at the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition (NSAC) and author of the report “Unsustainable: State of the Farm Safety Net.” Navigating USDA’s Relief Programs It’s still early days for USDA’s response to North Carolina’s disaster. The experience of Vermont farmers after epic flooding in 2023 and 2024, however, offers a window into the shortcomings of a federal disaster relief system that may be further weakened under a second Trump administration. Vermont farmers lost $44 million due to extreme weather in 2023, but received only $1.5 million in USDA relief funds, according to the Vermont Agricultural Recovery Task Force. What’s more, only 30 percent of the state’s 6,800 farms carry crop insurance. Ansel Ploog, co-owner of Flywheel Farm in Woodbury, Vermont, standing at the edge of the creek that swelled in 2023, taking all of the farm’s crops. (Photo credit: Meg Wilcox) For small farmers in the wake of disaster, getting USDA relief can be daunting—especially when they’re coping with traumatic loss. Trauma can lead to cognitive impairment, lack of concentration, and difficulty with problem solving or even just reading complex forms, noted Ansel Ploog, co-owner of Flywheel Farm in Woodbury, Vermont, which flooded in 2023. Ploog said she was too exhausted by the paperwork requirements, which were hard to translate to her two-acre farm, and hardship in her community, to apply for relief. “The harder part [of recovery] is navigating all the resources,” DelCogliano said. “I felt paralyzed every time I opened my computer, like, let me go drag some shit around. It’s way easier.” “There’s no one in this area who isn’t traumatized in some way,” said Wendy Brugh, co-owner of Dry Ridge Farm, a small poultry and livestock operation in Mars Hill, North Carolina, whose farm lost a hoop house and much of its fencing. Her biggest problem has been finding ongoing markets for the thousands of eggs her farm produces daily. “Being in the presence of that kind of destruction [in the community] on a regular basis is heavy.” Farmer support organizations are helping farmers with USDA paperwork and deadlines—but they can only do so much, notes Roland McReynolds, executive director of Carolina Farm Stewardship Association, which compiled a comprehensive listing of relief resources for farmers. The USDA held webinars last month to explain its relief programs, noting on October 7 that it had embedded staff with FEMA and had more than 200 people involved in the response. “We’re looking for ways that we can streamline, that we can enhance our flexibility to get folks in, that we can reduce barriers . . . to make it easier for folks to take advantage of our programs,” said Robert Bonnie, USDA’s Under Secretary for Farm Production and Conservation. While that’s encouraging, Maddie Kempner, policy and organizing director at the Northeast Organic Farming Association (NOFA) Vermont cautions, “the availability of a lot of these [USDA] programs ends up being like a mirage,”  because farmers learn that exclusions make them ineligible, or the payouts are too small to make the applications worth the trouble. Federal programs that can help smaller, diversified farms recover from extreme weather include the noninsured crop disaster assistance program (NAP) and the Whole Farm Revenue Protection program (WFRP). For both, farmers must be enrolled before disaster strikes. USDA also offers cost-share programs for needs such as land cleanup and tree removal, and for losses in livestock, feed, and grazing land. Emergency loans are sometimes available, too. Farmers access all these programs, except WFRP, through USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA) network. The Noninsured Crop Disaster Program (NAP) NAP is a hybrid crop insurance and disaster assistance program designed for farmers unable to access traditional crop insurance, which is geared for big farms. It offers free basic coverage for new and socially disadvantaged farmers, including women. But NAP has been relatively under-enrolled in western North Carolina, said McReynolds. “Anticipating a one in 100-, 500- or 30,000-year flooding event just wasn’t on folks’ radar.” Moreover, crops must be planted before certain dates under NAP, and those dates don’t match up with southern Appalachian crop seasons. Green Toe Ground did not have NAP protection. The program requires farmers to enroll each crop individually, which is a burden for farmers like DelCogliano, who grows 30 different organic vegetables and raises a few animals to create compost for soil health. “The most cumbersome aspect with diversified vegetable farming is, it’s hard to fit into the USDA boxes,” she said. Other farmers have had mixed experience with NAP. Digger’s Mirth Collective Farm in Winooski, Vermont, for example, lost $250,000 in revenue after 2023’s massive floods, but thus far has been reimbursed only $1,300, according to Hilary Martin, one of its members. “I spent so many hours, I had literal back pains from the paperwork involved in submitting all our crop information and losses,” she said. After the farm flooded again in July 2024, Martin said the collective decided not to bother filing a claim until their FSA agent urged them to file. But when Martin filed for 2024 losses, she learned they weren’t eligible because they had replanted before their agent visited the farm. “We were just way more aggressive about replanting,” this year, she said. While they had taken pictures and documented everything they had done, they had violated the terms of coverage. That means they will not receive any reimbursements from USDA for their 2024 losses. Instead, they have relied on state and local charitable funds. Having to wait for an FSA agent to visit your farm makes it that much harder when the staffing at those offices is minimal, said Kempner. USDA has waived that requirement for farmers impacted by Helene. David Marchant, co-owner of River Berry Farm in Fairfax, Vermont, a diversified vegetable and fruit grower, makes NAP work for him, which he receives for free. “The federal programs are good,” he said. “[But] they’re very, very slow. The amount of paperwork is extraordinary. You got to know how to figure it out.” Whole Farm Revenue Protection The Whole Farm Revenue Protection program (WFRP) was created in part to address NAP shortcomings. It allows farmers to enroll in crop insurance based on their overall revenue rather than on a crop-by-crop basis. Nevertheless, participation remains low, with only 1,967 U.S. farmers (.01 percent of farms) purchasing a policy in 2023. Complicated rules and paperwork, farmer skepticism, and disinterested insurance agents who make more money from policies covering one or two crops on large farms discourage farmers from enrolling, according to the NSAC report. Crop losses also have to be substantial for a payout to make a difference, noted Marchant. Tiny Bridge farm in Hendersonville, North Carolina, before Hurricane Helene. (Photo courtesy of Ed Graves) DelCogliano was not covered by WFRP, which is not uncommon in western North Carolina. In fact, less than five percent of the farmers in ASAP’s network are covered by any crop insurance, said Hart. Ed Graves, however, was motivated to purchase the coverage after experiencing bad flooding on his Hendersonville farm in  2021. His five-acre organic vegetable farm, Tiny Bridge, lost all its fall plantings to Hurricane Helene—broccoli, cauliflower, potatoes, leafy greens, carrots, radishes, and turnips. He pays $1,500 annually to carry WFRP and hopes to be reimbursed $10,000 from it, based on his earnings the past three years. Tiny Bridge immediately after Hurricane Helene. (Photo courtesy of Ed Graves) “I know how to fill out paperwork,” he said. “Maybe it’s because I worked in civil service for 20 years, so I understand how to ask for what I need from a bureaucracy.” Cost-Sharing and Emergency Loans Several USDA disaster relief grant programs are a good fit for smaller farms, such as the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), both of which help farmers clean up and regrade disaster-impacted land. Neither of these programs covers the costs of soil testing or rebuilding, although farmers can seek assistance for longer-term soil health improvement, such as cover crop planting, through USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS). RAFI has been most successful helping farmers apply for ECP, Johnson said, noting that some farmers have already received preliminary approval for land clearing and grading work. They’ll be reimbursed for 75 percent of the costs up to a $125,000 cap, depending on their farm size, though it’s unclear how quickly they’ll receive that money. “While we cannot predict the exact timing of payments being issued, we can assure that every effort is made to provide the resources needed to get the assistance to those who need it as soon as possible,” a USDA spokesperson said in an email to Civil Eats. DelCogliano filed an application for ECP funds but has not yet received approval and does not know how much money the farm may receive. Brugh estimates it will cost $100,000 to get all the dangerous trees removed from her farm, and she is exploring multiple sources of funding, including ECP. For farmers who don’t have prior NAP or WFRP coverage, and whose major losses are crops, equipment or buildings, a USDA emergency loan is about all that is available to them. “It’s shocking for a farmer who has hundreds of thousands of dollars in losses, who has maybe had to lay off their entire crew, especially at the peak of harvest season, to be told all they can offer you is a loan,” Kempner said. USDA’s emergency loans become available when the agricultural secretary or president declares a disaster in their county, but these are historically underutilized, in part because they often have higher interest rates than USDA direct loans, a USDA spokesperson said in an email to Civil Eats. In other words, if a farmer qualifies for private credit, they are not eligible for a USDA emergency loan. For Joie Lehouillier, co-owner of Foote Brook Farm in Vermont, it “was a real kick in the teeth” to be told that her good relationship with a private lender disqualified her from a lower-interest USDA loan. Lehouillier’s farm lost 95 percent of its crops and more than half a million dollars in equipment and supplies in the 2023 floods, she said. “Even though we got a tremendous amount of help through [state funding], it’s going to be a struggle for the next few years to just get back on our feet,” especially with the high-interest debt, she added. The Farm Bill, the Future, and Prospects for Reform  In addition to the programs above, USDA provides supplemental emergency disaster funds to farmers when approved by Congress. Prior to the Biden Administration, that aid went only to farmers enrolled in a crop insurance or disaster program, leaving out most small farms. Congress has not yet appropriated such aid for 2023 or 2024 disasters. President Biden recently asked Congress to authorize $24 billion in emergency relief funds for USDA, appealing for that aid to reach all impacted farmers, including those not enrolled in a USDA program. Hackett told Civil Eats that there is considerable momentum to pass a relief bill, and that it’s “very possible” that the current Congress will authorize disaster assistance inclusive of all farmers. That possibility becomes “less likely” with the next Congress, Hackett said.  Advocates have proposed changes to the farm bill to make USDA’s safety net more inclusive of small farmers hit by extreme weather. But Congress will likely not pick up the bill until later in 2025. With Republicans regaining control of the U.S. Senate, Congress has bigger fish to fry, such as a tax overhaul package, Johnson said. In the meantime, a USDA spokesperson said, “the farm bill expiration does not impact the ability of FSA and NRCS to support producers impacted by hurricanes,” and that “hurricane recovery efforts will continue through the administration transition.” “There’s no one in this area who isn’t traumatized in some way.” Kempner, of NOFA Vermont, is pessimistic that a Republican farm bill will embrace the reforms that are needed to help small-scale, diversified farmers remain resilient in the face of climate change. She is also concerned about Trump’s history of withholding aid for communities that don’t support him politically. Nevertheless, she said, “It’s important that we’re talking to each other across state lines about the kinds of structural changes that we need to be pushing for long term,” such as the creation of a permanently available disaster relief program within USDA based on farm revenue and with a short turnaround of, say, 30 days. DelCogliano, meanwhile, awaits the results of soil tests to learn what remediation may be necessary as she plans how to rebuild Green Toe Ground. “It’s a lot of things to figure out—the barn, the greenhouses, all the systems.” On top of that, she has to figure out how to rebuild for resiliency to increasingly extreme weather. The whole riparian zone has changed, she said. “Any big rain event is going to be much higher impact than before, because there’s nothing on the sides of the rivers holding it [within] its banks anymore. What would a rebuild look like in a way that could mitigate risk? Where’s our safety valve?” Like many other farmers, DelCogliano and Corozine are waiting for USDA approval of their application for land cleanup reimbursements. Meanwhile, they’re relying on a personal GoFundMe account and local charitable aid to pay their bills. “I still don’t have an idea of what [federal support] is going to look like,” DelCogliano said. “And that’s challenging.” The post Will Disaster Relief Come Through for North Carolina’s Small Farms? appeared first on Civil Eats.

Agriculture
Animals
Business

Most NZ dairy farmers put profitability first – but some are planting native trees anyway

A new study finds attitudes to biodiversity changing down on the farm, but there are still perceived barriers to planting what could be productive land in natives.

Phil Walter/Getty ImagesGlobally, about 40% of ice-free land is used for agriculture, managed by farmers and herders. In Aotearoa New Zealand, this share is even higher, with 51% of land used for agriculture and horticulture. Of this, currently about 10% is used for dairy farming. When natural habitats are cleared for agriculture, most native biodiversity is lost. Dairy farms represent intensive farming systems with significant detrimental consequences for biodiversity, water and soil quality. However, hedgerows, riparian plantings and shade trees can enhance native biodiversity within these landscapes. In our new study, we visited 14 dairy farms and interviewed farmers in the Waikato and Canterbury. The research was qualitative, allowing for an in-depth exploration of the experiences, values and priorities New Zealand dairy farmers have for their land and the implications for native biodiversity on farms. We found dairy farmers have multiple values and priorities but limited time, resources and energy. While working within external constraints such as land ownership or regulations, farmers will act on what they value most. Unlike most developed countries, New Zealand’s agricultural sector is entirely exposed to global markets. About 95% of dairy products are exported and government support is the lowest among OECD countries. Perhaps unsurprisingly, we found most dairy farmers list economic viability as their highest priority. Planting native trees is seen as a trade-off between productivity and other values, such as animal welfare. Phil Walter/Getty Images When biodiversity is a trade-off While being profitable is a necessity, maximising profitability is an option. Our interviewees say they would trade off some profit for other values, such as spending time with family, enjoying one’s work, having a visually pleasant home and work environment, improving animal welfare and minimising some negative environmental consequences of dairy farming. Waikato farmer Riley argued: You have to make money to keep [the farm] afloat, to be sustainable. But it doesn’t have to spit out millions of dollars in profit. And we want the lifestyle, and we want everything to be better than when we found it. Beyond the constraints of making a living and paying off farm debt, the landowner’s value hierarchy determines whether they incorporate native biodiversity into farm landscapes. Our interviewees spoke of many barriers to planting natives, including the cost of plants and ongoing maintenance, labour and lack of knowledge of which species to plant where. Apart from land ownership, however, these barriers are surmountable to those farmers for whom native biodiversity ranks highly in their hierarchy of values. They acknowledged that planting natives took time and cost money, but it was important enough to them to do it regardless. These farmers had incorporated native biodiversity into their farm management. For them, planting natives was not an optional extra but an integral part of running a sustainable dairy farm. Their definition of land improvement, sustainability and being a good farmer had come to include planting natives. Competing for land Currently, farm productivity and native biodiversity are usually viewed as being incompatible and in competition for land. This is a sentiment dairy farmers voiced in our study as well. Most participants did not see a clear connection between native biodiversity and milk production, and therefore did not believe planting natives could benefit the productivity or profitability of their farms. Some described areas of native vegetation as “lost land”. Some of our participants did, however, see opportunities for native biodiversity to contribute towards other values, such as the attractiveness of the farm or animal welfare by providing shade and shelter for cows. Many studies confirm that on-farm benefits are critical for the adoption of new management practices. Clarifying and emphasising known benefits of native biodiversity to the farm is therefore vital. Many farmers think they should use their land only to produce food. Phil Walter/Getty Images Value hierarchies can also shift over a farmer’s lifetime. How highly farmers value native biodiversity will influence how much land they are willing to “lose” for something other than milk production. Even for the “greenest” dairy farmer, however, strong convictions about the morality of using land for food production will limit how much native biodiversity is acceptable on farm. Native species will primarily be restricted to “marginal” land, mirroring Aotearoa’s broader approach to have conservation land in unproductive mountainous areas. Unless we can draw a clear connection between native biodiversity and the economic viability of a dairy farm, making space for natives will continue to depend on landowners’ value hierarchies. Incorporating care for native biodiversity into what it means to be a good farmer has potential to contribute to some transformation of agricultural landscapes. This requires cultural change – a change in the socially embedded understandings and symbols of good farming. A gradual shift may already be underway, as is suggested by the experiences of those participants who have seen changes in their own value hierarchies and in those of wider farming communities. Some farmers perceived a shift from the older to the younger generation, with younger farmers being taught to consider the environmental consequences of their practices. Some older farmers described their increasing appreciation of native plants, though they still struggled with the idea of using land for something other than growing pasture. We need to consider how as a nation we can work towards a shared understanding of good landcare and healthy landscapes. Elizabeth Elliot Noe receives funding from Centre of Research Excellence Bioprotection Aotearoa. Anita Wreford and Ottilie Stolte do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Agriculture
Animals
Conservation

Combining AI and Crispr Will Be Transformational

The genome-editing technology can be supercharged by artificial intelligence—and the results are already being felt.

In 2025, we will see AI and machine learning begin to amplify the impact of Crispr genome editing in medicine, agriculture, climate change, and the basic research that underpins these fields. It’s worth saying upfront that the field of AI is awash with big promises like this. With any major new technological advance there is always a hype cycle, and we are in one now. In many cases, the benefits of AI lie some years in the future, but in genomics and life science research we are seeing real impacts right now.In my field, Crispr gene editing and genomics more broadly, we often deal with enormous datasets—or, in many cases, we can’t deal with them properly because we simply don’t have the tools or the time. Supercomputers can take weeks to months to analyze subsets of data for a given question, so we have to be highly selective about which questions we choose to ask. AI and machine learning are already removing these limitations, and we are using AI tools to quickly search and make discoveries in our large genomic datasets.Science NewsletterYour weekly roundup of the best stories on health care, the climate crisis, new scientific discoveries, and more. Delivered on Wednesdays.In my lab, we recently used AI tools to help us find small gene-editing proteins that had been sitting undiscovered in public genome databases because we simply didn’t have the ability to crunch all of the data that we’ve collected. A group at the Innovative Genomics Institute, the research institute that I founded 10 years ago at UC Berkeley, recently joined forces with members of the Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences (EECS) and Center for Computational Biology, and developed a way to use a large language model, akin to what many of the popular chatbots use, to predict new functional RNA molecules that have greater heat tolerance compared to natural sequences. Imagine what else is waiting to be discovered in the massive genome and structural databases scientists have collectively built over the recent decades.These types of discoveries have real-world applications. For the two examples above, smaller genome editors can help with more efficient delivery of therapies into cells, and predicting heat-stable RNA molecules will help improve biomanufacturing processes that generate medicines and other valuable products. In health and drug development, we have recently seen the approval of the first Crispr-based therapy for sickle cell disease, and there are around 7,000 other genetic diseases that are waiting for a similar therapy. AI can help accelerate the process of development by predicting the best editing targets, maximizing Crispr's precision and efficiency, and reducing off-target effects. In agriculture, AI-informed Crispr advancements promise to create more resilient, productive, and nutritious crops, ensuring greater food security and reducing the time to market by helping researchers focus on the most fruitful approaches. In climate, AI and Crispr could open up new solutions for improving natural carbon capture and environmental sustainability.It's still early days, but the potential to appropriately harness the joint power of AI and Crispr, arguably the two most profound technologies of our time, is clear and exciting—and it’s already started.

Agriculture
Climate
Crisis

Carrefour's Cold Shoulder for South American Beef Sparks a Backlash From Brazil

Supermarket giant Carrefour’s support for French farmers’ protests against a trade agreement between the European Union and the South American bloc Mercosur has sparked a strong reaction in Brazil

BRASILIA, Brazil (AP) — Supermarket giant Carrefour’s support for French farmers’ protests against a trade agreement between the European Union and the South American bloc Mercosur has sparked a strong reaction in Brazil, including a refusal to supply beef to Carrefour stores in Brazil.Carrefour CEO Alexandre Bompard announced in social media posts last week that the French company would stop buying beef from all Mercosur countries, which also include Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay. Bompard wrote that he agrees with French producers' arguments that Mercosur beef is an unfair competitor due to lower production costs resulting from fewer environmental and sanitary requirements. The executive encouraged other retailers to follow suit.Brazil's Ministry of Agriculture called Bompard's move protectionist, saying it was made “without any technical criteria.”The decision also angered Brazil's meatpackers. Though France makes up just a tiny sliver of Brazil’s beef exports, meatpackers worried that Carrefour’s decision would hurt its reputation in other markets.Beef giants JBS and Marfrig halted supplies last Friday to Carrefour's extensive supermarket chain in Brazil, including the food warehouse giant Atacadao. Both companies refused to comment on the boycott to The Associated Press, but Minister of Agriculture Carlos Fávaro confirmed it.“We support the reaction of the meatpackers. If Brazil´s beef isn’t good enough for Carrefour’s shelves in France, it isn’t good enough for Carrefour’s shelves in Brazil either,” Faváro told Folha de S.Paulo newspaper on Monday.Carrefour Group in Brazil acknowledged the boycott in a statement, though it said there's not yet a shortage of beef in stores. It said it has “esteem and confidence in the Brazilian agricultural sector, with which it maintains a solid relationship and partnership.” “Unfortunately, the decision to suspend the meat supply has an impact on customers, especially those who rely on the company to supply their homes with quality and responsible products,” the statement said. “It is in constant dialogue in search of solutions that will make it possible to resume the supply of meat to its stores as quickly as possible, respecting the commitments it has to its more than 130,000 Brazilian employees and millions of Brazilian customers countrywide.”The backdrop for the conflict is the EU-Mercosur trade deal, which would increase agricultural imports to EU countries from South America. French farmers fear it will affect their livelihoods. An initial agreement was reached in 2019, but negotiations have faltered since then due to opposition that also includes some European governments.Brazil’s agribusiness sector also fears that the pending European Union Deforestation Regulation will outlaw the sale of forest-derived products within the EU’s 27-nation bloc if companies can’t prove their goods are not linked to deforestation. Its scope includes soy and cattle, Brazil’s top agricultural exports. Almost half of the country’s cattle is raised in the Amazon region, where 90% of deforested land since 1985 has turned into pasture, according to MapBiomas, a nonprofit network. The date of its implementation remains uncertain.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See - Sept. 2024

Agriculture
Business
Climate

Advancing urban tree monitoring with AI-powered digital twins

The Tree-D Fusion system integrates generative AI and genus-conditioned algorithms to create precise simulation-ready models of 600,000 existing urban trees across North America.

The Irish philosopher George Berkely, best known for his theory of immaterialism, once famously mused, “If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”What about AI-generated trees? They probably wouldn’t make a sound, but they will be critical nonetheless for applications such as adaptation of urban flora to climate change. To that end, the novel “Tree-D Fusion” system developed by researchers at the MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), Google, and Purdue University merges AI and tree-growth models with Google's Auto Arborist data to create accurate 3D models of existing urban trees. The project has produced the first-ever large-scale database of 600,000 environmentally aware, simulation-ready tree models across North America.“We’re bridging decades of forestry science with modern AI capabilities,” says Sara Beery, MIT electrical engineering and computer science (EECS) assistant professor, MIT CSAIL principal investigator, and a co-author on a new paper about Tree-D Fusion. “This allows us to not just identify trees in cities, but to predict how they’ll grow and impact their surroundings over time. We’re not ignoring the past 30 years of work in understanding how to build these 3D synthetic models; instead, we’re using AI to make this existing knowledge more useful across a broader set of individual trees in cities around North America, and eventually the globe.”Tree-D Fusion builds on previous urban forest monitoring efforts that used Google Street View data, but branches it forward by generating complete 3D models from single images. While earlier attempts at tree modeling were limited to specific neighborhoods, or struggled with accuracy at scale, Tree-D Fusion can create detailed models that include typically hidden features, such as the back side of trees that aren’t visible in street-view photos.The technology’s practical applications extend far beyond mere observation. City planners could use Tree-D Fusion to one day peer into the future, anticipating where growing branches might tangle with power lines, or identifying neighborhoods where strategic tree placement could maximize cooling effects and air quality improvements. These predictive capabilities, the team says, could change urban forest management from reactive maintenance to proactive planning.A tree grows in Brooklyn (and many other places)The researchers took a hybrid approach to their method, using deep learning to create a 3D envelope of each tree’s shape, then using traditional procedural models to simulate realistic branch and leaf patterns based on the tree’s genus. This combo helped the model predict how trees would grow under different environmental conditions and climate scenarios, such as different possible local temperatures and varying access to groundwater.Now, as cities worldwide grapple with rising temperatures, this research offers a new window into the future of urban forests. In a collaboration with MIT’s Senseable City Lab, the Purdue University and Google team is embarking on a global study that re-imagines trees as living climate shields. Their digital modeling system captures the intricate dance of shade patterns throughout the seasons, revealing how strategic urban forestry could hopefully change sweltering city blocks into more naturally cooled neighborhoods.“Every time a street mapping vehicle passes through a city now, we’re not just taking snapshots — we’re watching these urban forests evolve in real-time,” says Beery. “This continuous monitoring creates a living digital forest that mirrors its physical counterpart, offering cities a powerful lens to observe how environmental stresses shape tree health and growth patterns across their urban landscape.”AI-based tree modeling has emerged as an ally in the quest for environmental justice: By mapping urban tree canopy in unprecedented detail, a sister project from the Google AI for Nature team has helped uncover disparities in green space access across different socioeconomic areas. “We’re not just studying urban forests — we’re trying to cultivate more equity,” says Beery. The team is now working closely with ecologists and tree health experts to refine these models, ensuring that as cities expand their green canopies, the benefits branch out to all residents equally.It’s a breezeWhile Tree-D fusion marks some major “growth” in the field, trees can be uniquely challenging for computer vision systems. Unlike the rigid structures of buildings or vehicles that current 3D modeling techniques handle well, trees are nature’s shape-shifters — swaying in the wind, interweaving branches with neighbors, and constantly changing their form as they grow. The Tree-D fusion models are “simulation-ready” in that they can estimate the shape of the trees in the future, depending on the environmental conditions.“What makes this work exciting is how it pushes us to rethink fundamental assumptions in computer vision,” says Beery. “While 3D scene understanding techniques like photogrammetry or NeRF [neural radiance fields] excel at capturing static objects, trees demand new approaches that can account for their dynamic nature, where even a gentle breeze can dramatically alter their structure from moment to moment.”The team’s approach of creating rough structural envelopes that approximate each tree’s form has proven remarkably effective, but certain issues remain unsolved. Perhaps the most vexing is the “entangled tree problem;” when neighboring trees grow into each other, their intertwined branches create a puzzle that no current AI system can fully unravel.The scientists see their dataset as a springboard for future innovations in computer vision, and they’re already exploring applications beyond street view imagery, looking to extend their approach to platforms like iNaturalist and wildlife camera traps.“This marks just the beginning for Tree-D Fusion,” says Jae Joong Lee, a Purdue University PhD student who developed, implemented and deployed the Tree-D-Fusion algorithm. “Together with my collaborators, I envision expanding the platform’s capabilities to a planetary scale. Our goal is to use AI-driven insights in service of natural ecosystems — supporting biodiversity, promoting global sustainability, and ultimately, benefiting the health of our entire planet.”Beery and Lee’s co-authors are Jonathan Huang, Scaled Foundations head of AI (formerly of Google); and four others from Purdue University: PhD students Jae Joong Lee and Bosheng Li, Professor and Dean's Chair of Remote Sensing Songlin Fei, Assistant Professor Raymond Yeh, and Professor and Associate Head of Computer Science Bedrich Benes. Their work is based on efforts supported by the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service and is directly supported by the USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture. The researchers presented their findings at the European Conference on Computer Vision this month. 

Agriculture
Climate
Conservation

Suggested Viewing

On the Brink

A short movie explaining how sea lice coming from fish farms in British Columbia are harming wild salmon to the brink of extinction.

Animals
Agriculture
Extinction

Sustainable Living with Patrick Lang

A day in the life of Patrick Lang living a sustainable life in Malibu… filmed before his home and community were consumed by fire in the fall of 2018.

Sustainable
Land Use
Solutions

Gardens Petrified

After his father's death, Yusuf goes back to his village, which he has not been to for years, and learns that a geothermal company wants to buy his father's agricultural lands and drill a well. He wants to solve problems without disrespecting his father's memory, but things don't go as he hoped.

Resources
Agriculture
Fiction

Xylella Fastidiosa - The Apocalypse of Salento

A look into the devastating effects of a deadly disease on the historic olive trees in Puglia, Italy.

Plants
Agriculture
Documentary

Kumu Niu

The island of O'ahu is covered with coconut palms, but for fear of liability the vast majority of these sacred trees have been stripped of coconuts. The grassroots movement "Niu Now" is on a mission to restore the "niu," or coconut, as a fundamental food crop in Hawai'i and spread the Indigenous wisdom of "aloha 'āina:" loving land and serving people.

Land Use
Indigenous
Food

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.