Presented by

Dean R. Kleckner, President
American Farm Bureau Federation

March 5, 1998

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, my name is Dean Kleckner.  I am a farmer from Rudd, Iowa, where I grow corn, hogs and soybeans.  I am president of the American Farm Bureau Federation, the nation's largest organization of farmers and ranchers.

Farm Bureau is very concerned that the interests of farmers and ranchers are not being considered in international negotiations on climate change.  The administration's climate change proposal could impose new regulations and higher production costs on U.S. agricultural producers, disadvantage farmers in international markets and disrupt family farm and ranch operations.

Climate change policy is controversial.  Drastic action proposed by the administration is not justified at this time.
I appreciate this opportunity to discuss a subject that practically every farmer is an expert on-- the weather. Those farmers who aren't experts complain about it.  It rains too much or too little, it's too cold or too hot or frost threatens the harvest.  Farmers are interested in the weather because our livelihoods depend on it.

Farmers are interested in climate change for the same reason. We are willing to consider valid,scientific evidence that human activities, including our own, may cause higher relativeconcentrations of greenhouse gases and higher global temperatures.  Farmers are reducing greenhouse gas emissions and they are willing to do more, if good science says they should.  Now I'm a farmer, not a scientist, but I've reviewed the science behind the administration's climate change policy, and I don't find it particularly compelling.  I believe that based on current science, reasonable people can still disagree about whether the drastic action prescribed by the Kyoto agreement is justified.

The controversial nature of the science makes farmers more concerned about the cure being prescribed for them than about the threat of global warming.  They're concerned about new, burdensome regulations.  They're concerned about higher costs for fuel, energy, vehicles and equipment.  They're concerned about threats to their competitiveness in world markets, markets where they now export about one-third of the crops they grow.

Many farmers who have followed this important issue believe that the administration is acting hastily and prematurely in leading international efforts for immediate, legally binding and enforceable caps on greenhouse gas emissions.  First, its unclear that we even have a problem.  Second, if there is a problem we don't know the extent of agriculture's contribution.  Finally, we don't know what practices or programs farmers are likely to encounter as a result of an international agreement.

The bottom line is that we must have more information and valid, peer reviewed scientific research, before we make major policy decisions that will define the very structure of U.S. agriculture in the future.

The administration's proposal will restrict farming practices, disrupt livestock and crop production and increase farm energy costs.  Farmers like to think of themselves as good guys but we're being portrayed as villains when it comes to greenhouse gases.  Many international and U.S. regulators tell us we are contributors to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions.  They say that cattle and sheep produce methane; crop tillage produces both methane and carbon dioxide; and nitrous oxide comes from fertilizer and the burning of crop residue.

Climate treaty negotiators tell us that we're more than contributors, we're major contributors.  According to the United Nations Intergovernmental  Panel on Climate Change, one-fourth of the world's greenhouse gases come from agricultural activity.  Our own Environmental Protection Agency blames agriculture for 43 percent of  total methane emissions and 46 percent of  the nitrous oxide generated from human activity in the U.S.

Led by our own administration, international negotiators are pressing for strict, binding limits on these emissions. If such limits are adopted, the U.S. will be forced to consider laws and regulations to meet those legally enforceable reductions.  For agriculture, we could see new taxes on fuel and fertilizer, forced mileage requirements for light trucks and other motor vehicles, controls on planting, cultivation and harvesting practices and limits on the  number of livestock per acre.  These controls and practices have been proposed to treaty negotiators in a report which is submitted with my statement.  Agricultural practices specifically prescribed by the Kyoto protocol include planting trees and controls on methane.

Farm operations could be severely disrupted.  Restrictions on planting, cultivation and harvesting would interfere with farm management plans which have been designed to reduce production costs, maximize yields and conserve farmland.  For example, prescriptive cropping practices designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may not be compatible with crop rotation programs.  Integrated pest management programs, which reduce pesticide use through tillage and crop rotation, could also be jeopardized.

Fuel and energy and cost increases resulting from the Kyoto agreement could deal farmers an especially  heavy blow.  Energy costs are a major part of most farmers' production expense.  Fuels and energy-related inputs such as fertilizer and pesticides account for one-fourth of our off- farm operational expenses.  The American Petroleum Institute has projected increased prices for gasoline, diesel fuel and electricity by 50 per cent or more, depending on the emission targets that are prescribed.  The administration's estimates have been lower, but the U.S. Commerce Department agreed that capping carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels could require the equivalent of a 25-cent gas tax.   Fuel cost increases, even at these levels, would impose a big hardship on U.S. farmers.

A study by American Farm Bureau Federation economists projects losses in net farm income from 13 to 85 percent, depending on the specific commodity and fuel price assumptions.  Very similar impacts were projected by an independent study by Sparks Companies, Inc.  Results of both economic studies are submitted with my statement.  I would like to defer any specific questions about the American Farm Bureau Federation study to Terry Francl, AFBF Senior Economist, who is with me here today.

Agriculture's positive contribution in controlling emissions is not being considered.
Another aspect of this issue is that our  critics ignore farmers' positive role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. According to some scientists, agricultural cropland here in the U.S. may be an important "sink" for carbon dioxide because of the carbon sequestered by plants through photosynthesis.

Little recognition is given to advances in agricultural practices, conservation and energy efficiency by farmers, particularly here in the United States.  Farmers have significantly improved their efficiency and reduced their use of fuel and fertilizer.  They have dramatically increased their use of conservation practices.  Last year, 61 percent of U.S. croplands utilized conservation tillage or residue management practices which incorporate plant residue and carbon in the soil, reduce trips over the land and conserve fuel.  U.S. farmers have enrolled more than 30 million acres of farmland in the Conservation Reserve Program, an ambitious environmental initiative which dramatically reduces greenhouse gases.  Unfortunately, the Kyoto agreement gives no credit to U.S. farmers for these great advancements.

Critics in the climate change debate have focused on agriculture's contribution to greenhouse gases and have ignored our efforts in reducing emissions.  They have overlooked U.S. farmers' most important role-- feeding and clothing a growing, hungry world.  Each U.S. farmer now feeds and clothes more than 130 people.  Little, if any consideration has been given to the climate agreement's impact on our ability to meet future world demand for food and fiber.

The administration's proposal would disadvantage U.S. agricultural producers in world trade.
The Kyoto proposal commits the U.S. and other developed countries to specific, legally binding and enforceable emission reductions, forcing higher production costs on U.S. farmers.  It sets no binding requirements for developing countries, some of which are our strongest competitors for world markets of agricultural commodities.  Countries exempt from controls include Mexico, China, South Korea, Chile and Argentina.  Some of these developing countries already  have lower labor and production costs and would be given a new, major competitive advantage.

The proposal makes no sense from an environmental or an economic standpoint.  By the administration's own projections, carbon dioxide emission increases from developing countries will soon outpace those of the United States or other developed nations.  By forcing compliance of developed countries only, we fail to invest our efforts where they will achieve the greatest emissions reductions.  In the process, we place U.S. farmers at a competitive disadvantage and make them easy prey in the new world of free trade and market-oriented farm programs.

To add insult to injury, U.S. negotiators in Kyoto agreed to removing references to even voluntary emissions reductions for developing nations.

Agriculture's concerns have been strongly expressed to the administration with unsatisfactory results.
In November 1997, Farm Bureau and 17 other national farm organizations expressed strong concerns to President Clinton relating to the climate change agreement and the specific, potential impacts on agriculture which we have shared with the committee today.  These concerns have not been refuted by the administration.
 
Nearly a year ago, Chairman Lugar and a bipartisan group of 13  members of the Senate Agriculture Committee requested an analysis by the administration of the following:

 -  the potential effect of climate change on agriculture;
 - estimated emissions and sequestration of greenhouse gases by U.S. agriculture;
 - actions or controls likely to be implemented;
 - the resulting economic impact on U.S. farmers and ranchers.

Senators requested that the information be prepared in advance of August 1997 treaty negotiations in Bonn and Kyoto.  To our knowledge, these questions still have not been addressed by the administration.

Farm Bureau and more than 20 farm organizations and agricultural companies strongly supported S.R. 98, the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which opposes any international agreement that causes economic harm to the U.S. or does not require emissions reductions by developing countries.  The Kyoto agreement fails on both counts.

Farm Bureau makes the following recommendations regarding the Kyoto protocol and future international climate negotiations:

 1. There must be a full and informed public debate that involves agriculture and agricultural policy makers.
  The administration must seek a full and open debate with agricultural producers, leaders and organizations.  These efforts must  include agricultural policy makers within House and Senate committees on agriculture, the Congress and USDA. Proposals must include a detailed analysis and description of legislation, regulations, programs and practices that may be imposed upon agriculture as the result of a climate agreement.
 
 2. The administration should not sign the Kyoto protocol because of its potential    harm to U.S. farmers and because it violates the key principles of the Byrd-Hagel    Resolution.

 3. If the Kyoto protocol is signed by the administration, it should be submitted    immediately to the U.S. Senate for ratification.

 4. We strongly urge Congress to be vigilant in opposing efforts by the administration    to implement the treaty through rules, regulations or other means.

 5. The administration should withdraw support for legally binding and enforceable caps on greenhouse gases, and renew its support for voluntary emission reductions as prescribed by the 1992 Rio Summit.
 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to present Farm Bureau's concerns about the climate change agreement.