Since Donald Trump returned to the White House, the alterations and removals of government data sets have significant implications for the agriculture sector and investors. The disappearance of key tools and data sets that track communities at risk from climate change and toxic hazards leaves a void in the information that farmers, agribusinesses, and investors rely on to make informed decisions.
The removal of the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool, for instance, hinders the ability to identify communities most vulnerable to climate impacts. This tool was crucial for directing resources and investments towards disadvantaged communities, which often include agricultural regions. Without this tool, investors may struggle to assess the risks and opportunities in these areas, leading to potential misallocation of resources. The tool’s removal also affects the ability of farmers to access support and funding for climate resilience initiatives.
The EPA’s EJScreen tool, which helped understand communities on the front lines of toxic pollutants, was another critical resource for the agriculture sector. Its removal complicates efforts to monitor and mitigate environmental hazards that can affect crop yields, livestock health, and overall agricultural productivity. Investors in agribusinesses may find it challenging to evaluate the environmental risks associated with their investments, potentially leading to financial losses or reputational damage.
The broader implications of these data removals extend to the agricultural supply chain. Farmers, agribusinesses, and investors depend on accurate and accessible data to manage risks, optimize operations, and ensure sustainability. The lack of reliable data can disrupt supply chains, affect market stability, and hinder innovation in agricultural technologies. For instance, without comprehensive climate data, the development and adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices may be impeded, affecting long-term food security and agricultural sustainability.
The alterations to data presentation and the removal of key terms like “climate change” from agency websites also create a barrier to transparency and accountability. This can make it difficult for stakeholders to track environmental progress, hold agencies accountable, and advocate for policies that support sustainable agriculture. The lack of clear and accessible data can also lead to misinformation and confusion, further complicating decision-making processes for farmers, agribusinesses, and investors.
The efforts of the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative (EDGI) to archive and restore these data sets are crucial for mitigating some of these impacts. However, the ongoing challenges and uncertainties highlight the need for robust data governance and transparency in government operations. The agriculture sector and investors must navigate these challenges while advocating for the restoration and protection of essential data sets that support sustainable and resilient agricultural practices.
