In the United States, farmers can reach federal backed crops – a background that provides them with some peace of mind in the face of harsh weather. When drought, floods, or other natural disasters destroy a season, farmers can rely on insurance policies that will pay a certain percentage of the expected market value of food, and provide them with financial ruin.
But this insurance program may become tense with the exacerbation of global global warming, which leads to more uncertainty in the agricultural sector.
New study models how to harvest in the American Corn Belt – the United States’ areas in the Middle West, including Indiana, Ilua and Iowa, which produce the vast majority of the nation’s atom – can fluctuate over the next few decades under the warning scenario of United Nations climate. The researchers compared these results to the scenario with the lack of temperatures, as the growing conditions of tomorrow are the same today. They found that as temperatures continue to rise, it is possible that corn farmers in the country will see more than years as the returns – the losses they bear during those years will also be larger.
The study shows that the possibility of low corn farmers ’revenues is low enough to provoke insurance batches may double by 2050, creating financial stress for both farmers and government.
The results show how increased climate effects such as unprecedented heat can destabilize the growth of growing foods and food supplies in the country. It is possible to feel a large -scale corn yield, as the crop is used to feed livestock, convert them into fuel, and refine them into ingredients used in processed foods, among other applications.
“The atom is very necessary for the American diet,” said Sam Putinger, a data scientist at the University of California, Berkeley and the main researcher for the study. “There is the atom that we eat, but we also feed it for livestock. It is just an absolute cornerstone of how everyone is feeding in the country.”
In recent years, climate change has strained the American property insurance market, as insurance companies have raised the installments of home owners and in some cases they were completely withdrawn from the risky areas. Putnger’s study seems to reflect similar cracks in the federal crop insurance system, which was not designed to calculate the type of yield fluctuations that are likely to test them if the rise in global temperatures continues.
Scott Olson / Getti Imas
It was first established in the thirties of the twentieth century as agricultural support in the wake of the great depression, and the federal crop insurance program, or FCIP, obtained permanent permanence from Congress in 1980. About 13 percent of American farms In 2022, according to the service of economic research of the US Department of Agriculture.
The data indicates that the way the federal insurance for crops is currently being created is the most attractive The largest farmers in the country For example, with a decrease in the number of farms secured under FCIP from 2017 to 2022, But the number of acres of the insured increased. Meanwhile, the smaller farms and those that focus on specialized crops such as fruits and vegetables Federal coverage less. Farmers who go without insurance are alone when it strikes the harsh weather, Forced to rely on savings To compensate for lost income or communicate with other sub -cases from the US Department of Agriculture to obtain support.
The increasing temperatures have already affected the FCIP. Climate Federal crops were paid for 27 billion dollars Between 1991 and 2017, according to the Study of Stanford University. A separate report in 2023 of the Environmental Working Group, an active group that focuses on pollutants, found that the costs of insurance on federal crops More than 500 percent grew For almost two decades, it ends in 2022.
Looking at this astronomical jump, Putinger was not sure whether he and his colleagues would witness a significant increase in their expectations for the future. The team used an automatic learning model to simulate the growing conditions under One of the most moderate warming scenarios It was developed by the International Government Committee on Climate Change, a group of United Nations climate scientists.
Putinger, who was at some point concern that the team’s results were “calming the eye”, who was concerned at some point that they made an error in the accounts. To clarify the results, mention the growth season 2012 to 2013, which was Especially bad for corn farmersWith revenues of about 23 percent less than expected. “What our simulation says is: that year was bad, but this type of bad year will happen a lot often.”
Scott Olson / Getti Imas
Eunchun Park, an assistant professor that focuses on agricultural risks at Arkansas University, said the paper’s methodology was sound and that its results are “well in line” with his previous research on crop insurance. (Park did not participate in the study, as he participates in similar research with one of the authors participating in the study.)
Stephen Wood, a participant research professor at Yale College of the Environment, agreed to the methodology, but he indicated that the estimates of the study of study may be in the end – because the algorithm used by researchers did not explain farmers who plant different crops or change the cultivation strategies after a bad harvest. “It is a good analysis, but it may be the maximum effect, because there are adaptation measures that can reduce this,” he said.
Park, as the paper does, indicate that FCIP is not ready for the type of climate change. Under the program to protect the program, for example, farmers can guarantee their crops until a certain percentage of the date of actual production, or average farm production in recent years. If the farmer’s return decreases to less than this average, for example, due to the intense heat or a cold storm, the plan will show the difference.
But the averages do not reflect the dramatic decreases or nails in the return very well. If the farmer’s return is 180 inch of corn for each acre one year, then 220 the next day, they have the same return as the farmer who harvested 150 inch per acre and 250 inch per acre during the same time period. However, the last scenario costs the insurance supplier – in this case, the federal government – more money.
Putinger and his team say that legislators can reduce the financial burden on farmers and FCIP by amending the country’s farm bill, which governs American agricultural policy almost every five years, so that FCIP is equivalent to its farmers to use renewable agricultural methods. These practices, such as cultivation of crops as well as crops, and rotate crops from field to field, help increase soil health and crop flexibility.
Wood’s previous research has found that agricultural lands are with More organic materials in the soil Better fare in harsh weather events and see low insurance demands for crops. Other research showed Covering crops gives some benefits of flexibility Against drought and excessive heat.
However, renewal agricultural techniques may cause revenue to decrease in the early stages of implementation. “Crop insurance does not have a good way to get to know this now,” Putinger said.
Park and Wood predicted that the Risk Management Agency, which is part of the US Department of Agriculture, which regulates crop insurance policies, may be reluctant to change its approach to renewal agriculture. Wood said: “There is some resistance.”
Putinger stressed that although his team recommends making crop insurance more comprehensive for renewable agriculture practices, his report does not try to “dictate practice” for farmers. He believes that farmers should decide themselves if they will try to cover crop cultivation, for example. “Farmers know their land better than anyone else,” he said. “They must be really enabled to make some of these decisions and reward only on those results.”
