In This Issue Outlook for Agriculture

and Rural Development in Chile

IICA Promotes High-

Level Dialogue Between Agriculture and Environ-ment at the COP21

IICA Promotes Ex-

change on Commerciali-zation Strategies that Add Value and Facilitate Market Access for Agri-cultural Producers

IICA and the EU Launch

Program to Address the Effects of Coffee Leaf Rust on Central America and the Dominican Re-public

The Contribution of Ag-

riculture to Develop-ment

USDA Updated Avian

Influenza Preparedness Plan – Considerations on the Vaccine Use

Nationally Determined

Contributions from LAC: Where does Agriculture fit?

Infographic: Agriculture

in LAC Infographic: Context of

the Agricultural Sector FORAGRO Promotes

Inclusive Agricultural Research in the Ameri-cas

Call for Nominations—

World Food Prize Upcoming Events

From the Desk of the Representative Welcome to our first edition of 2016!

It is a pleasure to start this introduction to the first newsletter of 2016 from the IICA Delegation in the USA, by recognizing the dedication of all IICA

professionals to the cause of a more productive, sustainable and inclusive agriculture. 2016 has been, and will continue to be a very interesting year on all fronts. Internationally, the global arena has been dominated by security issues, economic troubles and environ-mental pressures. Domestically, it is expected that the economy in the US will remain healthy, despite the uncertainty in the oil markets and the economic perspectives of many of the major global players. Politically, we will know who will be the next President of the US; a decision that could have profound impacts on trade, climate change, immigration and economic integration. I am certain that the strengths of our institutions will prevail and that the democratic exercise we are experiencing, will prove that the US will continue to be a country of opportunity for all. Our Institute continues to strengthen its model of technical cooperation. Among the many results achieved by the Institute in 2015 we can mention: $116 US million in external funding. 158 externally funded projects. 23 projects financed by IICA´s competitive fund. More than 3000 participants benefited from the 8 policy dialogues lead by the

IICA Delegation in the USA. 1338 persons trained forming the new generation of professionals in agriculture. 2400 persons exchanged knowledge in biotechnology. 7 countries developed Animal and Plant Health and Food Safety Plans. 23 countries supported in the development of value chains. Dialogue between agriculture and environment within the framework of COP

(more than 19 countries involved). 18 rural territories with plan of action and 40 projects supported by IICA. Renewable energy program in Andean Region resulted in 17 innovations. Production technologies for small producers in Central America and Andean Region

identified and shared. During the last two months, the IICA Delegation in the USA has continued to work towards: Strengthening IICA´s relationships with the US Government, other US based Institu-

tions and the private sector. Increasing access to external resources to support technical cooperation across the

hemisphere. Providing “Strategic Thinking” of current and emerging issues affecting IICA´s work. Providing technical, administrative and logistic support to other IICA units. In this current newsletter, our professionals share with you their views and experiences on several important issues that impact agriculture today. I hope you find them interesting and would like to invite you to share with us your views and thoughts on them and ways in which to make this newsletter more relevant to you.

Sincerely , Dr. Miguel García-Winder, IICA Representative in the USA, Head of CAESPA

*The opinions expressed in this newsletter are those of the authors and they do not reflect the position of the Insti-

tute on the topics presented.

IICA Delegation in the USA Newsletter — January —February 2016

2

IICA Delegation in the USA Newsletter — January —February 2016

WHAT IS IICA?

The Inter-American Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture (IICA) is the specialized agency of the Inter-American System for agriculture. IICA supports the efforts of the 34 Member States to achieve agricultural de-velopment and rural well-being. The institute was established on October 7th, 1942 and its current headquar-ters are located in Coronado, Costa Rica. The IICA Delegation in the USA is located in Washington DC.

Mission: To encourage, promote and support our Member States in their efforts to achieve agricultural devel-opment and rural well-being through international technical cooperation of excellence.

Vision: To create a competitive, inclusive and sustainable inter-American agriculture that feeds the hemi-sphere and the world, while at the same time generating opportunities to reduce hunger and poverty among farmers and rural dwellers.

3

Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in Chile

CAESPA and the IICA Representation in Chile participated in the seminar “Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in Chile: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”, held in Santiago in December 2015. The event provided an op-portunity to analyze the major challenges facing agriculture and rural development in Chile over the next decades. Participants in the discussion included the Minister of Agriculture of Chile, Mr. Carlos Furche, Mrs. Claudia Carbonell, Di-rector of Office of Agricultural Studies and Policies (ODEPA) of Chile’s Agricultural Ministry and other Chilean agriculture experts. Mr. Carlos Furche highlighted the important role of agriculture in the Chilean economy and the challenges facing the sec-tor and Mrs. Carbonell stressed the importance of the seminar and dialogue to generate inputs for formulating long-term policies. Specialists of the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), the Eco-nomic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), analyzed the international and regional context, and presented the major prospects in macroeconomic context, agriculture, rural develop-ment and institutional framework for Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). The group discussed the challenges of policy frameworks in LAC to reduce gaps and to strengthen agriculture in the region. Finally, CAESPA referred to the major challenges facing Chilean agricultural productivity, emphasizing on innovation. The analysis presented by IICA, FAO and ECLAC was part of the document The Outlook for agriculture and rural development in the Americas: A perspective on Latin America and the Caribbean 2015-2016, which it was prepared jointly by these three institutions. Download the full report: http://bit.ly/21CXTEK Speaker presentations (Spanish only) are available at: http://bit.ly/1QS9omF

IICA Delegation in the USA Newsletter — January —February 2016

4

IICA Promotes High-Level Dialogue Between Agriculture and Environment at the COP21

Identifying potential synergies and building concrete collaboration between the ag-riculture and environment sectors to meet the challenges of adaptation and mitiga-tion of climate change was the focus of a high-level dialogue organized by the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) together with the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR). The event took place during the Global Landscapes Forum held during twenty-first Conference of the Parties (COP21) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in December 2015 in Paris, France. Participants in the discussion included the ministers of agriculture from Costa Rica, Guatemala and Uruguay, and vice ministers of Belize, Panama and Paraguay, Min-ister of Planning of Nicaragua, Nicaragua's ambassador to France, and representa-tives of CIFOR, the US Department of State, and the United Nations Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). The Executive Secre-tariat of the Central American Agricultural Council (SE-CAC), and the Executive

Secretariat of the Central American Commission on Environment and Development (SE-CCAD) also attended the event. Ministers discussed how to achieve inter-sectoral coordination, working cooperatively to implement the National Deter-mined Contributions (NDCs), and generate institutional and regulatory frameworks to address climate change that help ensure the region’s development goals can be achieved. "We must continue these inter-sectoral activities and have deep discussions on the connections between agriculture and environment. The international commitment to reduce the emissions intensity of greenhouse gases from the agricultural sector must be made taking into account the food production potential of each country, which in turn facilitates the devel-opment of national economies,” the Minister of Agriculture of Uruguay, Tabaré Aguerre, remarked. Manuel Jimenez, of the SE-CAC, reaffirmed that efforts must be redoubled as the effects of climate change and events such as El Nino are already apparent in the region and affecting food security and agricultural productivity.

Following the Inter-ministerial Dialogue, IICA and CI-FOR organized a broader ministerial round table, where Latin American ministers could discuss the chal-lenges they face in their countries, with ministers from other regions as well as representatives from some of the influential global organizations involved in providing technical cooperation and financing to address climate change. This included the executive director of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), Naoko Ishii; Execu-tive Director of the United Nations Environment Pro-gramme (UNEP), Achim Steiner; senior director of En-vironment and Natural Resources of the World Bank,

Paula Caballero; CEO and president of World Resources Institute (WRI), Andrew Steer; among others. David Williams, lead specialist on Resilience for IICA noted that that Institute, on behalf of its member countries, has been creating opportunities to raise the sector's profile in global climate discussions, emphasizing the signification contribution that agriculture can make to the solution in Latin America, not only in reducing emissions but in ensuring the efficient and responsible use of natural resources, food security, and achieving resilient rural development. More information: kelly.witkowski@iica.int

IICA Delegation in the USA Newsletter — January —February 2016

5

IICA Promotes Exchange on Commercialization Strategies that Add Value and Facilitate Market Access for Agricultural Producers

Twenty agricultural specialists from eleven countries in the Americas, shared their experiences in the promotion and imple-mentation of commercialization strategies that add value and facilitate linking small and medium scale agricultural produc-ers to markets, during an event organized by IICA in Peru. Participants included experts from public and private institutions such as: Universidad General San Martin-UNSAM from Argentina; Instituto de Desarrollo Agropecuario-INDAP from Chile; Fondo Ecuatoriano Canadiense and Riobanba whole sale market from Ecuador; AGEXPORT from Guatemala; Fundacion para el Desarrollo Rural-FUNDER from Honduras; Comision para la Promocion del Peru para la Exportacion y el Turismo –PROMPERU, International Potato Center-CIP, Lima whole sale market, Mercadeando S.A. and Sociedad Peruana de Gastronomia-APEGA from Peru. The workshop also included the participation of nine IICA officers who have experience in the subject based in Argentina, the Bahamas, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, the United States and Uruguay. The workshop validated and identified the commercialization strategies proposed by IICA to be promoted under its Com-petitiveness and Sustainability of Agricultural Chains and Family Agriculture flagship projects (local foods, productive agri-cultural linkages, and differentiated products); as well as the identification of best practices (cases), success factors and determinants for the promotion and implementation of each strategy. The inputs of the workshop will be used by the Flagship Project: Competitiveness and Sustainability of Agricultural Chains to strengthen the capacity of institutions that support the prioritized chains by developing internships and exchanges with the successful cases identified. More information: daniel.rodriguez@iica.int

IICA Delegation in the USA Newsletter — January —February 2016

6

IICA and the EU Launch Program to Address the Effects of Coffee Leaf Rust on Central America and the Dominican Republic

The Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) and the Eu-ropean Union (EU) officially launched the Central American Program for Com-prehensive Management of Coffee Leaf Rust during the formal inauguration of the Second Regional Summit on Coffee Leaf Rust, held on February 24 in Guatemala City. This regional initiative seeks to ameliorate the socio-economic situation being faced by the coffee growing sector in Central America and the Dominican Re-public following a severe coffee leaf rust outbreak that has impacted coffee production since 2012. The program also hopes to contribute to rehabilitating regional coffee production and fostering production models that are more sus-tainable from an economic, social and environmental standpoint. This new program will be implemented at the regional, national and local lev-els until 2021 using funds totaling 16.5 million euros, of which 15 million were donated by the EU as non-refundable aid. The program will be carried out in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua, and in four specific re-gions in those countries at the local level. The opening ceremony and official program launch were attended by Darwin Rodney Ramírez, Deputy Minister of Agricul-tural Health and Regulations of Guatemala; Kenny Bell, EU Ambassador to Nicaragua, Panama and the Central American Integration System (SICA); Víctor M. Villalobos, Director General of IICA; Jorge Ulloa, President of PROMECAFE; Miguel Medina, President of ANACAFE; Fernando Quevedo, IDB Representative in Guatemala; Matthias Sonn, German Ambas-sador to Guatemala; and Todd Robinson, U.S. Ambassador to Guatemala, among other authorities. Being able to participate in this summit by sharing the great news of the start of such an important regional program is very important to the EU. We hope the program will be a useful and effective tool for reducing the incidence of coffee leaf rust and, in turn, maintaining and increasing employment opportunities and food security for the most vulnerable communi-ties in the region, stated Ambassador Kenny Bell. According to Villalobos, the program will contribute to helping the re-gional coffee production sector to recover from the coffee leaf rust outbreak through the implementation of adaptation, mit-igation and risk reduction strategies for dealing with climatic disasters. It is also a part of IICA’s historic commitment to fos-tering the modernization, improvement and sustainable development of coffee production in its member countries. Incidence of coffee leaf rust The Central American Program for Comprehensive Management of Coffee Leaf Rust hopes to strengthen the coffee-growing sector’s institutional framework in terms of policies as well as applied research, to develop an effective early warn-ing system, and to facilitate the adoption of adaptation, mitigation and disaster risk reduction measures. Through these actions, the program seeks to improve living conditions for coffee-growing families. The adoption of these measures could contribute to reducing abrupt coffee losses like those that occurred in 2012 and 2013, when 2.7 million bags of coffee were completely lost to coffee leaf rust in Central America and the Dominican Republic, representing 20% of the total cof-fee production and causing a severe socio-economic impact. The Tropical Agriculture Research and Higher Education Center (CATIE), the Agricultural Research Center for Internation-al Development (CIRAD), the Executive Secretariat of the Central American Agricultural Council (SECAC), the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ), and the Regional Cooperative Program for the Technological Development and Modernization of Coffee Production (PROMECAFE) are some of the strategic partners that will be assisting IICA throughout the program’s execution. More information: salvador.fernandez@iica.int http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/nicaragua/index_es.htm

IICA Delegation in the USA Newsletter — January —February 2016

Víctor M. Villalobos, DG of IICA, during his speech at the

launch of the Central American Program for Comprehensive

Management of Coffee Leaf Rust, in Guatemala.

7

The Contribution of Agriculture to Development By Dr. Joaquín Arias, Policy and Sectoral Analysis Specialist, IICA, joaquin.aris@iica.int

The measure of agricultural output as the Agricultural Gross Domestic Product (AgGDP) does not include the agribusiness sector, neither the agricultural forward and backward linkages with the rest of the economy, nor the multiplier effect of the sector through income changes. Beyond those so called input-output linkages, tra-ditional statistics about agriculture say very little about agriculture’s contribution to rural development, poverty

reduction, food security, nutrition, biodiversity, and environmental sustainability. Furthermore, the conventional measurement of growth in agriculture does not reflect changes in income, but changes in the physical volumes of output only. Such growth indica-tors (rendered in constant prices) provide only a partial view of agriculture’s performance. This can create serious discontent among farmers since their income can actually decrease as a result of the lower prices even when output increases (see for more details Paz, Benavides, & Arias, 2009). Recognizing and correctly valuing the performance, critical importance and increasing role of agriculture in economic develop-ment have important implications for public sector budgetary allocations and actual expenditures in agriculture, which continue to be low and inadequate. Since the performance of agriculture has been measured using information about actual output and the sale of raw materials (mainly volumes of fresh produce or crops harvested, livestock slaughtered and fish produced/landed), the sector’s contribution to the country’s economic development is highly undervalued. In a pioneer effort to overcome measurement problems, IICA introduced in 2004 (Trejos, Arias, Segura, & Vargas, 2004) the con-cept of expanded agriculture, which is an accounting procedure that adds to the traditional measure of agriculture GDP (agriculture, forestry and fishing), the GDP generated by manufacture activities linked to the primary agricultural sector. Citing Jamaica as an example, primary-agriculture GDP during the period of 2004-2008 was 5.07% of overall GDP, but when adding the manufacture sector linked to agriculture, the contribution of expanded agriculture went up to 9.9%, an increase in the contri-bution of agriculture by a ratio of 1.95 (J. Arias, 2010). By comparison, the ratio of the contribution of expanded agriculture to the contribution of primary AgDP was 2.9 for Costa Rica and 11.6 for the United States (Trejos et al., 2004). In other words, it triples for Costa Rica and it is close to 12 times higher for the United States.

It needs to be recognized, however, that as a country moves from a stage of agriculture-based development (more than 50% workforce in agriculture) to urbanization (10-25% workforce in agriculture) to developed (less than 10% workforce in agriculture), either the percentage share of primary agriculture or the percentage share of expanded agriculture to GDP will decrease sig-nificantly. In agriculture-based countries, the agriculture share can be as high as 50% of overall GDP, down to near 20% in urbanizing countries, and further down to less than 10% in developed countries. This is because oth-er sectors of the economy, especially the service sector, become much more dynamic, therefore growing faster especially in countries entering higher stages of development. It does not mean, though, that the agricul-ture or agribusiness sectors, become less important. In fact, in agriculture-based countries, for every dollar generated on the farm, another 56 cents is generated in the agribusiness sector (a 1:0.56 ratio). That multiplier increas-es to 1:1.17 in urbanizing countries and to 1:1.90 in developed countries (World Bank Group, 2015). In other words, primary agriculture in countries

like the United States can contribute far less than 1% to overall GDP, but one dollar of primary agriculture generates close to 2 dollars in agribusiness valued added. Another way to visualize the contribution of agriculture to development is by measuring forward linkages with other sectors of the economy. Forward linkages mean economic activity generated beyond the farm as products move along the supply chain to final consumers. Citing again the case of Jamaica, for every dollar generated on the farm, 55 cents goes directly to primary con-sumption, in a sense, missing opportunities along the supply chain to add more value. Only 16 cents per dollar goes to the pro-cessed food sector, which in turn sells 62 cents for every dollar of output to final consumers, 12 cents to hotels and restaurants while 9 cents per dollar is exported. A similar exercise can be done with backward linkages or the valued added generated in sec-tors that served as the source of inputs and services for agriculture (chemicals, transportation, energy and financial sector). Over

IICA Delegation in the USA Newsletter — January —February 2016

8

time, policies and incentives should be implemented to stimulate more value added activities so that the economic impact of eve-ry dollar generated at the farm level increases.

Furthermore, as countries developed, agriculture value added per worker increases significantly. This is mainly due to increases in productivity, knowledge and capital intensification in agriculture. It is observed that average agriculture value added per worker is as low as USD 1,410 in agriculture-based countries, increases to USD 14,784 in urbanized countries on average, and is on aver-age as high as USD 31,268 in developed countries. So the share of primary agriculture to overall GDP, as well as relative employ-ment in agriculture, decreases significantly over time, while per worker agriculture capital stock and value added increases. This explains why a shrinking agriculture sector (in relative terms) is a major source of increasing income and living standards in rural areas, an important source of inputs for the industry, and produc-es enough food for a fast growing urban population all over the world.

Higher agricultural valued added per worker implies that more income is generated from agriculture which contrib-utes to lower levels of poverty in rural areas. Lower pov-erty rates in rural territories is also associated with more production and income diversification and with more mar-ket oriented economies (D. Arias et al., 2014). Income diversification provides higher off-farm income alterna-tives that complement agricultural activities, like the ser-vice-related, tourism activities in the rural areas of Costa Rica. Higher valued added, product diversification and export oriented non-traditional products, on the other hand, are linked to lower levels of poverty in the rural Chile. In light of the facts presented, the challenge ahead is to design effective policies to increase productivity, promote value-added agriculture, increase income and product diversification in rural territories, and to promote market-oriented policies. The allocation of more public resources to achieve the same must come from recognizing, meas-uring and valuing agriculture in its right dimensions, be-yond what traditional statistics show. This is a summary of a presentation delivered in January 2016 at the Regional Planners Forum on Agriculture – Policy Orientation/Training for Component 1: Strengthening Regional Agricultural Development Policy and Strategy Implementation of the Intra-ACP APP Project, funded under the 10th European Development Fund (EDF). References Arias, D., Coello, B., Arias, J., Giertz, A., Edmeades, S., Bandura, R., … Msellati, L. (2014). Agriculture for Nutrition in Latin America and the Caribbean : From Quantity to Quality. (D. Arias, Ed.). Washington DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/OseFZY Arias, J. (2010). The Contribution of Agriculture to Sustainable Development in Jamaica. San Jose, Costa Rica: IICA. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/yGQJdY Paz, J., Benavides, H., & Arias, J. (2009). Measuring agricultural GDP performance: a technical note. COMUNIICA. Retrieved from http://goo.gl/TrPFmd Trejos, R., Arias, J., Segura, O., & Vargas, E. (2004). More Than Food on the Table : Agriculture ’ S True Contribution. San Jose, Costa Rica: IICA. Re-trieved from https://goo.gl/0Z9Onc World Bank Group. (2015). Enabling the business of agriculture. Washington DC: World Bank Group. Retrieved from www.worldbank.org

IICA Delegation in the USA Newsletter — January —February 2016

9

USDA Updated Avian Influenza Preparedness Plan – Considerations on the Vaccine Use

By Dr. Horrys Friaça, Agricultural Health and Food Safety Specialist, IICA, horrys.friaca@iica.int Since it was first identified in the United States in December 2014 in the Pacific Northwest, highly

pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) has been detected in commercial and backyard poultry flocks, wild birds, or captive wild birds in 21 States. With the last case of the spring outbreak identified in June, 2015, a total of 211 commercial and 21 backyard poultry premises has been affected. This resulted in the depopulation of 7.5 million turkeys and 42.1 million egg-layer and pullet chickens, with devastating effects on these businesses, and a cost to Federal taxpayers of over $950 mil-lion. To prepare for additional outbreaks that could occur in 2016 or later, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) planning activities assumed a worst-case scenario beginning in September 2015, with HPAI occurring simultaneously in multiple sectors of the poultry industry throughout the nation. Under this scenario, 500 or more commercial establishments of various sizes across a large geographical area could be affected. USDA’s plan for preventing and responding to future HPAI cases, in collaboration with industry and State partners, includes: I. Preventing or Reducing Future Outbreaks II. Enhanced Preparedness III. Improved and Streamlined Response Capabilities IV. Preparing for the Potential Use of AI Vaccines Of all the aspects of the response to HPAI, vaccination is likely the most complex. The United States did not have a stock-pile of AI vaccine at the start of the current detections; inventories of AI vaccine are fairly limited because poultry are not routinely vaccinated for HPAI in the United States. Last year, the USDA issued a determination that it would not be incor-porating vaccination into HPAI response activities at that time, citing the lack of an AI vaccine that is well matched to the current outbreak virus and the possible negative impact on international trade. USDA also indicated that it would reassess the vaccine question following further development of more effective vaccines. To encourage private sector manufacturers to develop AI vaccines that could be ready this fall or winter, the USDA ’s Ani-

mal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has published two requests for proposals (RFP) on August 17 and No-vember 20, 2015. The RFP enables the USDA to purchase vaccines to use in response to the outbreak or stockpile for future needs—either option will provide financial incentive for manufacturers. Researchers and vaccine companies are developing vaccines that use the genetics from the current HPAI virus that caused disease in spring 2015. They are stud-ying how much protection the vaccine will provide for immunized birds. For those under development, the USDA is work-ing closely with the manufacturers to expedite the review and approval of their products to ensure that they are available for use as quickly as possible. USDA regularly reviews new vaccine options as they are developed and submitted for licensing. USDA has not approved the use of vaccine at this time. Before doing so, USDA would take into consideration the: extent and rate of spread of the outbreak (including the effectiveness of response activities), type of poultry operations affected, potential impact on domestic and international supplies and markets, potential impact on the ability of our American producers to export poultry overseas, and effectiveness and availability of vaccine If APHIS approves vaccine use, it would not be used alone. Instead, it would be part of a larger, overall strategy to contain

IICA Delegation in the USA Newsletter — January —February 2016

10

and eliminate the HPAI virus from the United States. While vaccinating, APHIS still would focus on enhanced biosecurity and surveillance, rapid depopulation, and other virus elimination methods to help end the out-break. Ultimately, only these actions can achieve total eradication and restore the poultry industry to full production and exports It is important to understand what HPAI vaccine would and would not do. HPAI vaccines reduce sickness, clinical signs, and death in domes-tic poultry. They would not prevent birds from becoming infected with the AI virus or from producing and shedding virus into the environment. That risk is apt to scare away potential buyers of vaccinated birds or products made from them. Vaccine would, however, reduce the amount of virus an infected bird sheds into the environment, which in turn helps prevent spread to new locations. Acknowledging this reality, the USDA said, "During this outbreak, USDA has preserved open markets to countries that account for approximately 84 percent of the value of U.S. poultry and poultry products (including eggs) in 2014. However, some significant trading partners have indicated that, if we began vaccinating, they would ban all U.S. exports of poultry and eggs until they could complete a risk assessment." Such risk assessments take time, and the loss of the markets could cost US poultry producers billions in lost export sales, with no clear timeline for reopening the markets, the agency said. USDA would carefully target where to use vaccines; they would not be used on a widespread basis. Limiting vaccination to some areas and some species would offer the best chance of limiting crippling export sanctions. Producers would not be able to obtain vaccine from their veterinarian and proactively vaccinate their birds. Only USDA and State veterinarians would authorize vaccine use and monitor its administration. After Vaccination Producers would not be allowed to move vaccinated birds outside of the vaccination area, unless the shipment was sent directly to slaughter under a permit from State or Federal animal health officials. Products from vac-cinated birds could only be moved and used within the United States. Animal health officials would regularly monitor and test vaccinated flocks for HPAI infection. If they find infection, APHIS would depopulate the flock and provide indemnity to the producer. APHIS would also work with producers to closely track all vaccinated birds through their normal lifespans to confirm when they are removed from the U.S. poultry population. If there are indications that the vaccine strategy is not working to help contain the disease, APHIS would re-evaluate the use of vaccine. Finally, APHIS would stop vaccination after the outbreak is contained and HPAI eradicated. Once all vac-cinated birds were removed from the U.S. poultry population, APHIS could re-declare the United States HPAI-free without vaccination. Vaccination use was already mentioned in previous USDA strategies for HPAI outbreaks control, but due to the current preparedness level towards this possibility, it seems that the USDA would be more willing to actually incorporate vaccina-tion use in its arsenal against HPAI, if it is needed. On the other hand, the U.S. recently approved animal health import requirements for beef from foot and mouth disease free areas, where vaccination is applied. A long standing paradigm over the lack of safety of free zones established with vaccination was then overcome. As for other diseases, the World Animal Heath Organization (OIE) standards for HPAI surveillance and control also incor-porate vaccination strategies and guidelines for the trade of vaccinated poultry and related products. The use of OIE standards to assure safety on animal products trade must be promoted as a way to reduce unfair and disproportionate practices in international trade. That can benefit all the countries in terms of access to healthy products, foreign consumer markets, wealth and increased animal welfare.

IICA Delegation in the USA Newsletter — January —February 2016

11

IICA Delegation in the USA Newsletter — January —February 2016

Nationally Determined Contributions from LAC: Where does Agriculture fit?

By Kelly Witkowski, Agriculture and Climate Change Officer, IICA, kelly.witkowski@iica.int 2015 was a key year for international climate negotiations, and culminated in the adoption of the Paris Climate Agreement at the COP21. Scheduled to enter force in 2020, it strengthens the resolve to meet the 2 degree Celsius

temperature increase while encouraging movement towards 1.5 degrees. The Agreement also raises the profile of adaptation, un-derlining the need for “enhancing adaptive capacity, strengthening resilience and reducing vulnerability to climate change, with a view to contributing to sustainable development and ensuring an adequate adaptation response in the context of the temperature goal”.1

Agriculture occupied a much more prominent role in the climate negotiations in Paris than ever before. As one of the sectors most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and one that also has great potential for mitigation, the agriculture sector has increasing-ly been taking steps at the local, national and regional levels to address the issue. The preamble of the Paris Agreement recognizes “the fundamental priority of safeguarding food security and ending hunger, and the particular vulnerabilities of food production sys-tems to the adverse impacts of climate change.” 2

Agriculture is also included in the majority of the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), or building blocks of the Paris Agree-ment, submitted by countries to the UNFCCC, including the large majority from Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC). (I)NDCs: What are they? Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) are individual and voluntary commitments and goals for post-2020 climate action that both developed and developing countries submitted before or shortly after the COP21 in December of 2015. Based on national priorities, circumstances and capabilities, they detail each party’s goals and the actions they will take to achieve a low-carbon, climate resilient future. All of the INDC’s include a mitigation component, and the large majority also address adaptation concerns. Submissions included both unconditional goals, as well as conditional goals that are contingent on receiving financial or technical support. As the Paris Agreement was adopted during the COP21 in December of 2015, these are no longer considered intended, and are therefore referred to as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Through February 29, 2016, 161 submissions, reflecting 188 countries (including the 28 European Union member states) had been received by the Convention. These 188 countries represent almost 99% of global emissions in 2010 (excluding LULUCF) and 98% of the global population.3 Of these submissions, 18 included only mitigation, while 143 included both mitigation4 and adaptation. Though not sufficient, NDCs are certainly a step in the right direction, committing all countries to report regularly on their emissions and stipulations were made in the agreement to ensure the goals are met and “ratcheted up” or increase in ambition over time. Countries will be required to submit emissions and progress reports on the implementation of their NDCs, develop revised, more am-bitious plans every five years. LAC NDCs: How was agriculture included? All of the countries in the Western Hemisphere, with the exception of Panama and Nicaragua, have submitted an INDC. Thirty one of those, from Latin America and the Caribbean, are analyzed here. All 31 of the NDCs included emissions reductions actions or targets. With the exception of Belize and Trinidad and Tobago, all also included infor-mation on adaptation. Belize, however, notes that they will be including this information at a later time. Eighteen of the NDCs presented unconditional goals, while 29 presented goals (or additional goals) that are contingent on receiving adequate levels of support – either financial support, investment, technology development and transfer, or capacity-building. The importance or promoting sustainable, climate resilient agricultural production and enhancing food security in the region in the face of climate change is reflected in the fact that 30 out of the 31 countries include the topic in their NDCs (Trinidad and Tobago did not). Twenty eight of the NDCs from the region reference the vulnerability of agriculture and food security to climate change and stress it as a priority for climate adaptation. The NDCs highlighted the dependency of the countries on the agricultural sector for economic and rural development, employment, food security, and foreign exchange earnings. Sustainable management of fisheries, conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of reef ecosystems and marine habitats were mentioned as critical for many of the Caribbean countries.

12

IICA Delegation in the USA Newsletter — January —February 2016

While the primary focus of the region’s NDCs re-garding agriculture was adaptation, many coun-tries (24) also included agriculture as one of the sectors covered in the mitigation section of the NDC. Fewer included specific actions, projects or goals focusing on reducing emissions from the agricultural sector, as can be seen in the figure below.

Agriculture and mitigation Due to its importance for food security, many countries do not commit to mitigation action in the sector. However in the region’s NDCs, five Caribbean countries and seven Latin American countries have included specific actions for mitigation from the sector. In the Caribbean, these were primarily linked to more efficiently using biomass to contribute to renewable energy plans or to avoiding land use change. In Latin America, there is a strong focus on mitigation as a co-benefit or in synergy with adaptation in the sector, with a focus on actions such as the implementation of agro-silvopastoral systems. Costa Rica and Uruguay make the strongest mitigation commitments for the sector, with Costa Rica focusing on coffee, livestock and bio-mass, and Uruguay emphasizing the reduction of emissions intensity from the live-stock sector. Agriculture and adaptation The NDCs highlight the extreme vulnerability of the agriculture sector as well as vulnerabilities in the related sector of water resources, while emphasizing the need for policies and actions that enhance the resilience of the sector to climate change while increasing food security and promoting sustainable food production. Several of the climate related risks and impacts featured in several of the NDCs include changes in precipitation quantity and patterns, extreme events, flooding,

droughts, salinization of land and aquifers, increased land degradation, decreased productivity and increasingly scarce freshwater resources. Many highlight proactive actions being taken, such the incorporation of climate change in sectoral plans, and policies, actions to enhance food security and promote sustainable land management, and the development of agricultural sector adaptation strategies. The governments of the region clearly acknowledge the importance and vulnerability of the agriculture sector, and prioritize building resilience in the agriculture sector to ensure food security and the achievement of other development goals. Strengthening policies, using improved varieties, diversification, reducing land degradation, improved natural resource management, rainwater harvesting and storage, desalinization, and integrated water resources management are all measures that several countries in the region have prioritized. A combination of policy, research, capacity building and technical measures at the local, national and regional levels will be required to transform the Caribbean’s agriculture into a low-emissions, climate resilient sector. What’s Next? 2015 was a critical year for advancing the commitments made towards climate action, not only through the UNFCCC process, but also through the approval of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction and the new Sustainable De-velopment Goals. The coming years will define the success of these agreements, as the political commitments made are translated into action on the ground, the evolution of public policy frameworks, and the materialization of sufficient funding and other forms of support for developing countries. The agriculture sector will play a central role in the achievement in the goals laid out and must be more engaged and proactive to capitalize on the opportunities these agreements provide and to channel financing, knowledge, and technology towards the sector. Agriculture must be a leader in mainstreaming both mitigation of and adaptation to climate change within the policies, strategies and programs of the sector in order for countries to meet their food security, poverty reduction, environ-mental, and development goals. Footnotes: 1 https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf pg. 23 2 https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09.pdf pg. 20. 3 http://cait.wri.org/indc 4 In the Western Hemisphere, the United States of America, Canada, Trinidad and Tobago and Belize did not include adaptation, though the latter has plans to do so in the future. 5 Note: The data presented here is currently being finalized thus subject to change, however they do provide a solid indication of the hemispheric trends.

13

IICA Delegation in the USA Newsletter — January —February 2016

CAESPA

IICA Delegation in the USA Newsletter — January —February 2016

Infographic prepared by Eugenia Salazar, Research Assistant, IICA ,CAESPA: eugenia.salazar@iica.int

14

CAESPA

IICA Delegation in the USA Newsletter — January —February 2016

Infographic prepared by Eugenia Salazar, Research Assistant, IICA ,CAESPA: eugenia.salazar@iica.int

15

FORAGRO Promotes Inclusive Agricultural Research in the Americas

Improving agricultural productivity and sustainability depends on the ability of rural people to adopt change and innovate in their use of technologies, manage their systems, and make sustainable use the natural and environmental re-sources. Small producers throughout the hemisphere have demonstrated their capacity to apply innovative practices to improve their productivity and deal with climate change. A study from the Regional Fund for Agricultural Technology (FONTAGRO), supported by IICA and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), featured fifteen cases in which family farmers in Latin America have inno-vated to increase their incomes and improve their lives. Efforts focused on agro-forestry diversity production, innovative designs for farming equipment, new sources of protein from native farm animals, and many others demonstrate that farmers by necessity are resourceful innovators. Expanding farmers’ capacity to innovate depends on their access to knowledge and information services. The scientific discoveries from research carried out at national and international agricultural centers have greatly contributed to the com-plex agricultural system in the hemisphere. Working together with their partners, these institutions have developed technol-ogies and knowledge that, when adopted and/or adapted by thousands of farmers, have become the innovations that im-pact agriculture production and productivity. Innovation is also driven by novel ways of organizing the producers and connecting them to the information they need. Ru-ral extension and advisory services serve several important functions for rural people. They contribute to the transfer of new technologies and provide advice on problems or opportunities in production, marketing, conservation, and family liveli-hood. These services facilitate the development of local skills and organizations, and links with other programs and institu-tions. The commitment to ‘leave no one behind’, a key feature of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), means ensuring that every individual achieves the rights and opportunities described by these goals. In the context of agri-food research and innovation, leaving no-one behind begins by ensuring that farmers participate equitably in the processes of research and innovation, and that they benefit from the results. The Forum for the Americas on Agricultural Research and Technological Development (FORAGRO) is joining forces with the organization Cooperatives of the Americas and IICA in ensuring that agricultural innovation systems- encompassing research, extension, education and enterprise- deliver the best development outcomes for resource-poor farmers and rural communities. As part of the Global Forum on Agricultural Research (GFAR), these organizations will carry out a hemi-spheric consultation to ensure that the voices of farmers and agricultural workers are heard and contribute to shape re-search efforts. The consultation will be carried out through the extensive Infotec network managed by IICA, which aims at sharing information for technological innovation in agriculture in the Americas with its 21,000 subscribers. The results of this effort will be shared with the global community at the third Global Conference on Agricultural Research for Development (GCARD3) to be held in South Africa in April. GCARD3 aims to promote effective, targeted investments in research for development to ensure that today’s agricultural research will meet the needs of the resource-poor end user. Focusing on small and medium sized farmers makes sense. Small-scale family farms continue to produce most of the sta-ple foods we consume. Smallholder farming accounts for 80% of the farms, occupies 35% of farmland, and is responsible for 64% of agricultural employment in Latin America. For more information on FORAGRO and the consultation, please contact: priscila.henriquez@iica.int

IICA Delegation in the USA Newsletter — January —February 2016

Contact Us IICA Delegation in the USA 1889 F Street, N.W., Suite 360, Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: 202-458-3767 Fax: 202-458-6335 Website: www.iica.int/unitedstates Email: iica.us@iica.int Twitter: @IICA_USA

March 16th—18th, 2016 —MIOA XXXVI Meeting of the Executive Committee, Washington, D.C.

March 22nd, 2016— Webinar: The Outlook for Agriculture in the United States: Implications for Latin America and Caribbean

March 24th, 2016— TFO Canada Webinar—Fruits and Vegetable Dispute Resolution Corporation: Alternative Dispute Resolution System in North America

April 5th—8th, 2016 —Third Global Conference on Agricultural Research and Development (GCARD3), South Africa

April 6th—8th, 2016— IICA’s Institutional Management Meeting, Costa Rica

April 11th—12th, 2016—World Strategic Forum, Miami, FL, USA

April 26th, 2016— Chicago Council - Global Food Security Symposium 2016, Washington, D.C., USA

May 1st, 2016—Deadline to nominate an individual/s for World Food Prize

IICA Delegation in the USA Newsletter — January —February 2016

CALL FOR NOMINATIONS

The World Food Prize: Recognizing and Inspiring Breakthrough Achievements in Feeding the World

Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Dr. Norman Borlaug envisioned a world without hunger. To that end, in 1986 the scientist and humanitarian

created the World Food Prize to recognize individuals who have advanced human development by improving the quality, quantity or

availability of food in the world. Today, this award has come to be called “the Nobel Prize for Food and Agriculture." The institution is

currently soliciting nominations through May 1 at www.worldfoodprize.org/nominate.

In providing recognition to modern-day heroes in food and agriculture, the World Food Prize seeks to shine a spotlight on their critical

accomplishments and also inspire future achievement by scientists, policymakers, leaders of nongovernmental organizations, business-

es, and others working on key issues and solutions that can have a profound impact on ensuring global food security.

Since its inception, the World Food Prize has been awarded to 40 individuals from around the globe for achievements in a broad array

of areas, including nutrition and health; plant and seed science; animal science; soil science, water and conservation; crop protec-

tion; food technology and safety; policy, research and extension; infrastructure and distribution; and hunger and poverty alleviation.

Each October, the $250,000 World Food Prize is presented to a worthy individual. As we confront the single greatest challenge in hu-

man history – whether we can sustainably feed the more than 9 billion people who will inhabit our planet by 2050 – it is more criti-

cal than ever that the World Food Prize honors and inspires great achievements in food and agriculture. To continue Dr. Borlaug’s

dream, consider nominating an individual or individuals who have made the breakthrough achievements needed to ensure ade-

quate food for all mankind in the 21st century.

Details and nomination forms are available now in six languages at www.worldfoodprize.org/nominate.