DOCSLIB.ORG

The Food Industry and ESG (Intensive Production of Protein) Meat, Fish, Eggs and Dairy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Food Industry and ESG (Intensive Production of Protein) Meat, Fish, Eggs and Dairy The food industry and ESG (intensive production of protein) Meat, fish, eggs and dairy Context Ensuring that the growing global population has access to adequate, sustainable and nutritious food is one of the greatest challenges facing the world today. The global food system is under increasing pressure to meet this challenge. Rising healthcare costs, climate change and a range of other catalysts are adding to this pressure, presenting potential material investment risks for companies and investors alike. These material risks are particularly evident in livestock production, given its substantial negative external impacts, which coupled with the growing global demand for meat, fish, eggs and dairy products will only intensify. Intensive livestock (and associated product) production is the dominant system with 70% of all animal proteins produced in this way. This trend is expected to continue as many Asian countries, including China consolidate their farming operations to reduce fragmentation and increase production efficiencies. Investors who integrate analysis of environment, social and governance (ESG) issues into their investment approach must look across agriculture and food value chains, particularly as the magnitude of financial risks is likely to increase over the long term given current food production trends. Companies directly involved in animal factory farming are most exposed to key ESG issues. However, consumer-facing companies at the end of the value chain – such as food retailers and restaurants – are also exposed to these risks. The magnitude of risks to companies involved in animal factory farming and industrial food production are likely to increase as a result of rising capital costs, the shifting gravity of production to developing countries with less robust regulation, the impacts of climate change and increasing social concerns over animal welfare and sustainability. Defining the sector The intensive production of livestock and associated products (meat, fish, eggs, dairy) is “the Sector”, so for investors, understanding where exposure to investment risk may occur is key. Arguably this is easier where an investment is clearly being made directly into the Sector (e.g. a farm). It can be more challenging and the risk more easily overlooked where an investment is made indirectly into the Sector (e.g. to a supplier – such as pharmaceuticals - or to a purchaser of the products – such as restaurants and retailers). Mapping a portfolio to help identify those investments most exposed to the Sector (in its broadest sense) might help a GP when screening prospective investment opportunities, undertaking due-diligence and/or in prioritising engagement. The following highlights those industries linked to the Sector (more detailed information provided in Annex A): The livestock industry and its universe of companies (indicative by industry type) INDUSTRY TYPE Direct link to intensive farming Animal factory farm Breeding (stud) farm Fish farm Slaughterhouse Animal processing Indirect (Suppliers) Pharma (antibiotics for farmers) Pharma (growth promoters) Animal or fish feed producers Animal or fish tagging Live animal transport Infrastructure manufacture (gestation crates, milking systems, feedlots) Indirect (End Users) Restaurants Food producers (meat, fish, egg, dairy) Processors of animal by-product or waste (bone meal, sludge) Leather manufacture /processing Silk manufacture/processing Retail or wholesale (food) Retail or wholesale (Pet Food) Retail (clothing/fabrics) The relative importance or materiality of ESG (higher, moderate and lower importance) in each portfolio company might then be considered. Further work might involve discussion of the bespoke ESG factors (risks and opportunities) associated with each company (deep dive review). Given the Sector is typically impacted by a multiple number of ESG factors, establishing the relative materiality of such factors can be a challenge. In many cases almost all ESG factors might be relevant. To help understand the suite of ESG factors that are most relevant to a portfolio, an approach that is often adopted is a combination of top down analysis (e.g. SASB) and bottom up (e.g. site or farm level) questioning and analysis (noting that the reality on the ground might be very different to what was envisaged through top down sectoral analysis). It’s important to note that many firms in the Sector are privately owned, especially those in the supply chain (e.g. animal feed, pharmaceuticals) and end-users of products (e.g. restaurants, food manufacturers, pet food). When we ran our own analysis in-house for example we found our own exposure was primarily to end-users such as restaurants and food production. Risk profile of the sector Several ESG issues may be material to the long-term value of impacted companies, depending on specific circumstances and geographies. Weak management of these issues may negatively impact a company’s financial performance. Conversely, good management of these issues are likely to improve a company’s reputation, access to investors and overall performance. Selected material ESG factors associated with the industry sector (Source: Coller FAIRR Protein Producer Index, 2018) ESG factor Business driver(s) Timeline for financial materiality Governance issues Food provenance The ability to provide safe, good quality Short term: Food safety issues can lead to (safety) food is fundamental to the business of animal culls, recalls, demand impacts and food production and food security. price volatility in the short-term. Environmental issues Climate change Livestock production represents 14.5% Likely long-term: Companies with carbon- of all global anthropogenic gas (GHG) intensive species (e.g. beef and dairy) are emissions (FAO, 2013) and exposure to most at risk from potential regulation or regulatory and economic impacts as taxation targeting the livestock sector. the Paris Agreement is implemented to keep global temperature rises <2°C. Water Access to water is an increasingly Medium term: As water resources come significant issue for intensive farming under more pressure, companies that as large amounts are required (both derive revenues primarily from water- directly and for feed production). intensive proteins (e.g. beef and dairy) could be exposed to feed price volatility, regulation, and community protests. Waste & pollution Poor waste management leaves animal Medium term: Companies could face more protein producers exposed to potential community advocacy and litigation for poor financial, regulatory or social impacts. practices (fines or curbs on expansion). Deforestation & Many investors see deforestation and Likely long-term: Company business models biodiversity loss biodiversity loss as a systemic risk. that depend on land-use changes could face constraints from competition for land and food security. Also, a shorter term risk for companies that source from or operate in ecologically sensitive areas like the Amazon. Social issues Antibiotics misuse The growth of antimicrobial resistance Medium term: As more food companies (AMR) poses a serious threat to global transition to phase out routine antibiotic public health. use, livestock companies without robust policies may lose out on contracts, and are exposed to regulatory changes, as more governments develop action plans to manage growing AMR. Working conditions Poor worker health and safety presents Medium term: Companies face potential significant operational and reputational productivity issues, product boycotts and risks for the sector. damage to reputation. Animal welfare Animal welfare is increasingly viewed Short term: Animal welfare is rapidly as an important aspect of a well- evolving into a magnified reputational risk managed food business. The issue is and could result in the loss of contracts increasingly regulated and something from customers under pressure from customers increasingly expect. consumers and advocacy groups. Engagement We’ve observed investors adopt the following when seeking to focus on ESG issues applicable to the sector: Sectoral investment focus (exclusions) Side letter provisions to address the Sector and its ESG issues, including animal welfare Broader scope of ESG factors (e.g. animal welfare, antibiotics) within formal responsible investment/ESG policies Specific due diligence questions on ESG in the sector Reference to available resources and tools Follow up visits/deep dive reviews at underlying portfolio companies Workshops for GPs/companies to highlight the sector and associated ESG factors Resources and tools Selected examples of the resources and tools available include: Ceres (https://www.ceres.org/) Engage the Chain: An Investor Guide on Agricultural Supply Chain Risk: Engage the Chain overviews the environmental and social risks and impacts of 8 commonly sourced agricultural commodities: beef, corn, dairy, fibre-based packaging, palm oil, soybeans, sugarcane and wheat. These commonly sourced commodities are among the most prominent drivers of deforestation, greenhouse gas emissions and water depletion and pollution. The interactive report also clarifies actions investor and companies should take to reduce agricultural supply chain exposure. Feeding Ourselves Thirsty: Tracking Food Companies Progress Toward a Water-Smart Future: In this report, Ceres ranks over 40 of the largest food sector companies on how they are responding to water risks and how performance has shifted since the first round of benchmarking. This analysis provides company
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Economic Sustainability of Small-Scale Forestry
    Economic Sustainability of Small-Scale Forestry International IUFRO Symposium Anssi Niskanen and Johanna Väyrynen (eds.) EFI Proceedings No. 36, 2001 European Forest Institute IUFRO Working Unit 3.08.00 Academy of Finland Finnair Metsämiesten Säätiö –Foundation MTK – The Central Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners, Finland University of Joensuu, Faculty of Forestry, Finland EFI Proceedings No. 36, 2001 Economic Sustainability of Small-Scale Forestry Anssi Niskanen and Johanna Väyrynen (eds.) Publisher: European Forest Institute Series Editors: Risto Päivinen, Editor-in-Chief Tim Green, Technical Editor Brita Pajari, Conference Manager Editorial Office: European Forest Institute Phone: +358 13 252 020 Torikatu 34 Fax. +358 13 124 393 FIN-80100 Joensuu, Finland Email: [email protected] WWW: http://www.efi.fi/ Cover photo: Markku Tano Layout: Johanna Väyrynen Printing: Gummerus Printing Saarijärvi, Finland 2001 Disclaimer: The papers in this book comprise the proceedings of the event mentioned on the cover and title page. They reflect the authors' opinions and do not necessarily correspond to those of the European Forest Institute. The papers published in this volume have been peer-reviewed. © European Forest Institute 2001 ISSN 1237-8801 ISBN 952-9844-82-4 Contents Foreword ........................................................................................................... 5 Special Session: Economic Sustainabiliy of Small-Scale Forestry – Perspectives around the World – John Herbohn Prospects for Small-Scale Forestry
    [Show full text]
  • Economics of Competition in the U.S. Livestock Industry Clement E. Ward
    Economics of Competition in the U.S. Livestock Industry Clement E. Ward, Professor Emeritus Department of Agricultural Economics Oklahoma State University January 2010 Paper Background and Objectives Questions of market structure changes, their causes, and impacts for pricing and competition have been focus areas for the author over his entire 35-year career (1974-2009). Pricing and competition are highly emotional issues to many and focusing on factual, objective economic analyses is critical. This paper is the author’s contribution to that effort. The objectives of this paper are to: (1) put meatpacking competition issues in historical perspective, (2) highlight market structure changes in meatpacking, (3) note some key lawsuits and court rulings that contribute to the historical perspective and regulatory environment, and (4) summarize the body of research related to concentration and competition issues. These were the same objectives I stated in a presentation made at a conference in December 2009, The Economics of Structural Change and Competition in the Food System, sponsored by the Farm Foundation and other professional agricultural economics organizations. The basis for my conference presentation and this paper is an article I published, “A Review of Causes for and Consequences of Economic Concentration in the U.S. Meatpacking Industry,” in an online journal, Current Agriculture, Food & Resource Issues in 2002, http://caes.usask.ca/cafri/search/archive/2002-ward3-1.pdf. This paper is an updated, modified version of the review article though the author cannot claim it is an exhaustive, comprehensive review of the relevant literature. Issue Background Nearly 20 years ago, the author ran across a statement which provides a perspective for the issues of concentration, consolidation, pricing, and competition in meatpacking.
    [Show full text]
  • Land Degradation and the Australian Agricultural Industry
    LAND DEGRADATION AND THE AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY Paul Gretton Umme Salma STAFF INFORMATION PAPER 1996 INDUSTRY COMMISSION © Commonwealth of Australia 1996 ISBN This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, the work may be reproduced in whole or in part for study or training purposes, subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgment of the source. Reproduction for commercial usage or sale requires prior written permission from the Australian Government Publishing Service. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Manager, Commonwealth Information Services, AGPS, GPO Box 84, Canberra ACT 2601. Enquiries Paul Gretton Industry Commission PO Box 80 BELCONNEN ACT 2616 Phone: (06) 240 3252 Email: [email protected] The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of the Industry Commission. Forming the Productivity Commission The Federal Government, as part of its broader microeconomic reform agenda, is merging the Bureau of Industry Economics, the Economic Planning Advisory Commission and the Industry Commission to form the Productivity Commission. The three agencies are now co- located in the Treasury portfolio and amalgamation has begun on an administrative basis. While appropriate arrangements are being finalised, the work program of each of the agencies will continue. The relevant legislation will be introduced soon. This report has been produced by the Industry Commission. CONTENTS Abbreviations v Preface vii Overview
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Energy Efficiency of Food Production Systems
    energies Article Economic Energy Efficiency of Food Production Systems Bartłomiej Bajan * , Aldona Mrówczy ´nska-Kami´nska and Walenty Poczta Department of Economics and Economic Policy in Agribusiness, Faculty of Economics, Poznan University of Life Sciences, 60-637 Pozna´n,Poland; [email protected] (A.M.-K.); [email protected] (W.P.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +48-61-846-6379 Received: 19 September 2020; Accepted: 6 November 2020; Published: 8 November 2020 Abstract: The current global population growth forecast carries with it a global increase in demand for food. In order to meet this demand, it is necessary to increase production, which requires an increase in energy consumption. However, forecasted energy production growth is insufficient and traditional sources of energy are limited; hence, it is necessary to strive for greater energy efficiency in food production systems. The study aimed to compare the economic energy efficiency of food production systems in selected countries and identify the sources of diversification in this field. As a measure of energy efficiency, the indicators of the energy intensity of food production were used in this study. To calculate these indicators, a method based on input-output life-cycle assessment assumptions was used, which enables researchers to obtain fully comparable results between countries. The study showed that despite an increase in energy consumption in the food production systems of the analyzed countries by an average of 27%, from 19.3 EJ to 24.5 EJ, from 2000 to 2014, their energy intensity decreased, on average, by more than 18%, from 8.5 MJ/USD to 6.9 MJ/USD.
    [Show full text]
  • May 23, 2019 Dear Food Industry, Food Waste Is a Major Concern In
    May 23, 2019 Dear Food Industry, Food waste is a major concern in the United States. The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Economic Research Service estimates that 30 percent of food is lost or wasted at the retail and consumer level.1 This means Americans are throwing out approximately 133 billion pounds of food worth $161 billion each year.2 Manufacturers of packaged foods voluntarily use a wide variety of introductory phrases on product date labels, such as “Best If Used By,” “Use By,” and “Sell By,” to describe quality dates to indicate when a food may be at its best quality. In a 2007 survey of U.S. consumers conducted on knowledge and use of open dates (i.e. calendar dates) used on product date labels for common packaged foods, less than half were able to distinguish between the meanings of three different introductory phrases that often appear before the calendar date on the product label: “Sell By”, “Use By”, and “Best If Used By”.3 The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) has found that food waste by consumers may often result from fears about food safety caused by misunderstanding what the introductory phrases on product date labels mean, along with uncertainty about storage of perishable foods.4 It has been estimated that confusion over date labeling accounts for approximately 20 percent of consumer food waste.5 Industry, government, and non-profit organizations have been working to reduce consumer confusion regarding product date labels. Consumer research has found that the “Best If Used By” introductory phrase communicates to consumers the date by with the product will be of optimal quality.1 FDA has engaged in consumer education to raise awareness of food waste, reduce confusion regarding voluntary quality-based date labeling, and provide advice on food storage best practices to reduce waste.
    [Show full text]
  • Food & Beverage Processing Industry Operating Costs
    COMPARATIVE FOOD & BEVERAGE PROCESSING INDUSTRY OPERATING COSTS The Boyd Company, Inc. Location Consultants Princeton, NJ A COMPARATIVE OPERATING FOOD & BEVERAGE PROCESSING COST ANALYSIS INDUSTRY SITE SELECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS COMPARATIVE OPERATING COST ANALYSIS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND NOTES ...................................................................................................... 1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1 COMPARATIVE REGIONAL LOCATIONS ........................................................................... 1 LABOR COSTS ..................................................................................................................... 2 COMPARATIVE ELECTRIC POWER AND NATURAL GAS COSTS .................................. 2 COMPARATIVE LAND ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS ............................. 3 COMPARATIVE AD VALOREM AND SALES TAX COSTS ................................................. 3 TOTAL ANNUAL OPERATING COST RANKINGS .............................................................. 3 ABOUT BOYD ....................................................................................................................... 4 COMPARATIVE OPERATING COST ANALYSIS : ........................................................................ 5 EXHIBIT I: A COMPARATIVE ANNUAL OPERATING COST SIMULATION SUMMARY .................................................................................................. 6-7 EXHIBIT
    [Show full text]
  • ALIPHATIC DICARBOXYLIC ACIDS from OIL SHALE ORGANIC MATTER – HISTORIC REVIEW REIN VESKI(A)
    Oil Shale, 2019, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 76–95 ISSN 0208-189X doi: https://doi.org/10.3176/oil.2019.1.06 © 2019 Estonian Academy Publishers ALIPHATIC DICARBOXYLIC ACIDS FROM OIL SHALE ORGANIC MATTER ‒ HISTORIC REVIEW REIN VESKI(a)*, SIIM VESKI(b) (a) Peat Info Ltd, Sõpruse pst 233–48, 13420 Tallinn, Estonia (b) Department of Geology, Tallinn University of Technology, Ehitajate tee 5, 19086 Tallinn, Estonia Abstract. This paper gives a historic overview of the innovation activities in the former Soviet Union, including the Estonian SSR, in the direct chemical processing of organic matter concentrates of Estonian oil shale kukersite (kukersite) as well as other sapropelites. The overview sheds light on the laboratory experiments started in the 1950s and subsequent extensive, triple- shift work on a pilot scale on nitric acid, to produce individual dicarboxylic acids from succinic to sebacic acids, their dimethyl esters or mixtures in the 1980s. Keywords: dicarboxylic acids, nitric acid oxidation, plant growth stimulator, Estonian oil shale kukersite, Krasava oil shale, Budagovo sapropelite. 1. Introduction According to the National Development Plan for the Use of Oil Shale 2016– 2030 [1], the oil shale industry in Estonia will consume 28 or 9.1 million tons of oil shale in the years to come in a “rational manner”, which in today’s context means the production of power, oil and gas. This article discusses the reasonability to produce aliphatic dicarboxylic acids and plant growth stimulators from oil shale organic matter concentrates. The technology to produce said acids and plant growth stimulators was developed by Estonian researchers in the early 1950s, bearing in mind the economic interests and situation of the Soviet Union.
    [Show full text]
  • Effects of Innovation in Agriculture
    IEA Current Controversies No.64 THE EFFECT OF INNOVATION IN AGRICULTURE ON THE ENVIRONMENT Matt Ridley and David Hill November 2018 Institute of Economic A airs 3 IEA Current Controversies papers are designed to promote discussion of economic issues and the role of markets in solving economic and social problems. As with all IEA publications, the views expressed are those of the author and not those of the Institute (which has no corporate view), its managing trustees, Academic Advisory Council or other senior staff. 4 Contents About the authors 6 Summary 8 Introduction 9 Part 1. Innovation in food production, Matt Ridley Introduction 13 The price of food 15 Land sparing versus land sharing 16 The state and future of British farming 19 Biotechnology 21 Precision farming and robotics 33 Other innovations and trends in farming practice 36 How key UK crops can be transformed by innovation 42 Bioenergy has significant environmental problems 49 Conclusions and recommendations 55 References 57 5 Part 2. A new countryside: restoration of biodiversity in the UK, David Hill Introduction 63 The State of Nature 68 Biodiversity conservation policy 72 Agriculture needs to improve its environmental performance 74 Land sharing and land sparing 77 Restoring nature and ecosystems in the UK 78 Interventions for biodiversity in the farmed landscape 80 Investing in the natural environment 86 Investment vehicles 91 Conclusion and recommendations 98 References 102 Acknowledgements 106 66 About the authors 77 Matt Ridley Matt Ridley’s books have sold over a million copies, been translated into 31 languages and won several awards. They include The Red Queen, Genome, The Rational Optimist and The Evolution of Everything.
    [Show full text]
  • 20200930 – Prop 12 9Th Circuit Amicus Business Groups
    Case: 20-55631, 09/30/2020, ID: 11841979, DktEntry: 21, Page 1 of 40 No. 20-55631 IN THE United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit NATIONAL PORK PRODUCERS COUNCIL & AMERICAN FARM BUREAU FEDERATION, Plaintiff-Appellants, v. KAREN ROSS, et al., Defendant-Appellees, and THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., Intervenor-Defendant-Appellees. On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California No. 3:19-cv-02324-W-AHG, District Judge Thomas J. Whelan BRIEF FOR THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS, THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, FMI – THE FOOD INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, THE NATIONAL CATTLEMEN’S BEEF ASSOCIATION, AND THE NATIONAL MINING ASSOCIATION AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT Patrick Hedren Catherine E. Stetson Erica Klenicki Danielle Desaulniers Stempel MANUFACTURERS’ CENTER HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP FOR LEGAL ACTION 555 Thirteenth Street NW 733 10th Street NW Washington, DC 20004 Washington, DC 20001 Phone: (202) 637-5600 Phone: (202) 637-3000 Fax: (202) 637-5910 Counsel for National Association [email protected] of Manufacturers Counsel for Amici Curiae September 30, 2020 Additional Counsel Listed on Inside Cover Case: 20-55631, 09/30/2020, ID: 11841979, DktEntry: 21, Page 2 of 40 Additional counsel: Steven P. Lehotsky Jonathan D. Urick U.S. CHAMBER LITIGATION CENTER 1615 H Street NW Washington, DC 20062 Phone: (202) 463-5948 Counsel for Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America Stephanie K. Harris FMI – THE FOOD INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION
    [Show full text]
  • Food and Pharma Basics Basics Basics Food & Pharma Food & Pharma
    WISSEN - KNOWLEDGE Food and Pharma Basics BASICS BASICS Food & Pharma Food & Pharma Food and Pharma Hygienic Design Cleanability © RECHNER Germany 04/2020 EN - Printed in EU, all rights reserved. 2 RECHNER Industrie-Elektronik GmbH • Gaußstraße 6-10 • D-68623 Lampertheim • Tel. +49 6206 5007-0 • Fax +49 6206 5007-36 • e-mail: [email protected] • www.rechner-sensors.com All specifications are subject to change without notice. (04/2020) BASICS BASICS Food & Pharma Food & Pharma TABLE OF CONTEND Table of Contend Page Motivation 4 - 5 Sources of Information 6 European Standards and Directives 7 - 8 Declaration of Conformity Norms and DirectivesNorms Basics and Examples 9 - 14 Tri-Clamp / Tri-Clover 15 - 22 Tri-Clamp Food Contact Materials Basics and Directives 23 - 25 Materials Plastics 26 Metalls 27 RECHNER Industrie-Elektronik GmbH • Gaußstraße 6-10 • D-68623 Lampertheim • Tel. +49 6206 5007-0 • Fax +49 6206 5007-36 • e-mail: [email protected] • www.rechner-sensors.com 3 All specifications are subject to change without notice.(04/2020) BASICS BASICS Food & Pharma Food & Pharma MOTIVATION SAFE PRODUCts In process technology and plant engineering, the definition of „hygienic design“ refers to the design of machines and plants with consideration of the cleanability of the system. CONSUMER PROTECTION This is always relevant where products are manufactured that can be dangerous for the consumer due to germs or contamination and also where the product can turn out to be unusable, which represents a loss for the manufacturer. OPTIMIZatiON OF THE CLEANING PROCESSES Hygienic design is for example relevant in the following business areas: • Food industry (humans and animals) REDUCTION OF THE • Beverage industry CLEANING AND • Pharmaceutical industry • chemical industry MAINENANCE TIMES • cosmetic industry • Biotechnology Hygienic design must be considered at all parts of the plant that come into direct contact with the product to be produced.
    [Show full text]
  • The New U.S. Meat Industry
    Barkema/Drabenstott.qxd 6/21/01 1:37 PM Page 33 The New U.S. Meat Industry By Alan Barkema, Mark Drabenstott, and Nancy Novack new meat industry is rapidly emerging in the United States, as food retailers, meat processors, and farms and ranches coalesce Ainto fewer and larger businesses. The industry’s rapid consolida- tion in recent years has triggered alarms that the industry’s new giants in retailing and processing could drive up food prices for consumers and drive down livestock prices for producers. How should public policy respond to the industry’s consolidation? And how can all participants in the industry—producers, processors, retailers, and consumers—benefit from its new structure? This article studies the striking changes in the meat industry in three steps. First it describes how the industry is changing. Then it examines the forces driving the industry’s consolidation. Finally, it con- siders how consumers and industry participants are affected. While cur- rent evidence is scant that market power has hurt either consumers or producers, the industry’s rapid consolidation nevertheless warrants vigi- lance. At the same time, public policy might also play a role in ensuring that all participants in the market benefit from its new structure. All three authors are members of the bank’s Center for the Study of Rural America. Alan Barkema is vice president and economist, Mark Drabenstott is vice president and director, and Nancy Novack is a research associate. Kate Sheaff, a research associate in the Center, helped prepare the article. The article is on the bank’s web site at www.kc.frb.org.
    [Show full text]
  • China's Water-Energy-Food R Admap
    CHINA’S WATER-ENERGY-FOOD R ADMAP A Global Choke Point Report By Susan Chan Shifflett Jennifer L. Turner Luan Dong Ilaria Mazzocco Bai Yunwen March 2015 Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to the Energy Our CEF research assistants were invaluable Foundation’s China Sustainable Energy in producing this report from editing and fine Program and Skoll Global Threats Fund for tuning by Darius Izad and Xiupei Liang, to their core support to the China Water Energy Siqi Han’s keen eye in creating our infographics. Team exchange and the production of this The chinadialogue team—Alan Wang, Huang Roadmap. This report was also made possible Lushan, Zhao Dongjun—deserves a cheer for thanks to additional funding from the Henry Luce their speedy and superior translation of our report Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, blue into Chinese. At the last stage we are indebted moon fund, USAID, and Vermont Law School. to Katie Lebling who with a keen eye did the We are also in debt to the participants of the China final copyedits, whipping the text and citations Water-Energy Team who dedicated considerable into shape and CEF research assistant Qinnan time to assist us in the creation of this Roadmap. Zhou who did the final sharpening of the Chinese We also are grateful to those who reviewed the text. Last, but never least, is our graphic designer, near-final version of this publication, in particular, Kathy Butterfield whose creativity in design Vatsal Bhatt, Christine Boyle, Pamela Bush, always makes our text shine. Heather Cooley, Fred Gale, Ed Grumbine, Jia Shaofeng, Jia Yangwen, Peter V.
    [Show full text]