APB agenda 061902 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Page 4 Continued from page 3 farmland preservation report I 0 -fold increase in farm bill dollars due to changes in conservation programs and funding boosts in the conservation title. Florida and California, the nation's highest value agricultural producers, have ironically been on the low end of assistance from the farm bill, which has traditionally supported "the grain and Plains states," Evans said. Evans said that widespread criticism concerning subsidies doesn't consider that "a lot of the decisions made in the farm bill were based on our cheap food policy," that critics overlook what drives a policy movement. The farm bill, Evans said, provides "a good safety net" for commodity growers and also "provides more funding for conservation than any other single piece of legislation in history." Evans worked during farm bill negotiations to streamline how conservation programs are implemented. The aim to make eligibility criteria more flexible and to simplify participation in multiple conservation programs was achieved, Evans said, in the Title II (Sec. 2003) provision "Partnerships and Cooperation." The provision allows the creation of "special agreements" that will cut red tape when multiple programs are used to achieve a conservation practice. Subsidies vs. free market Like farm bills before it, the Farm Security and Rural Development Act of 2002 sets up new policy and programs for agricultural production, land and water conservation, and nutrition programs. This farm bill is significantly more generous toward conservation programs than in the past. For example, a whole new program called the Conservation Security Program is budgeted at $2 billion, and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is budgeted at $9 billion, up from $1.32 billion.— its original authorization in 1996. The reauthorization of a multitude of conservation programs that make up the 59 May 2002 pages of Title II of the farm bill received significantly greater funding than in 1996. But environmental groups are calling the farm bill a farce, a "joke" and at best a disappointment because it is a reversal of ideals embedded in the 1996 farm bill that promised to end decades of subsidies that encouraged overproduction and to begin an era of support to farmers based on rewards for conservation practices. Dependence on federal payouts was to give way to renewed market forces and "freedom to farm." It was a radical move to let the market, not Washington, have the greater effect on agriculture. But a series of bad weather seasons and uncertain markets resulted in emergency "safety net" bills, and a drive by farm lobbyists to regain full commodity supports. Farm legislation leaders started out this farm bill with a strong drive to continue the move toward conservation -based support to farmers. Battles were won, but the revolution-was lost. Commodity -based farm support won the day: crop supports will not only continue, but are increased by 70 percent, with even more commodities coming into. the loop, including�lentils, honey and wool. The new farm bill will increase spending on agriculture programs to $105 billion, up by $45 billion, over the next six years. Legislators of both political parties admitted election -year posturing had everything to do with who won the fight to funnel federal subsidy dollars: big producers in states where key senators are up for re- election. Small farms were the big losers, say groups like the Center for Rural Affairs and the Environmental Working Group, which this year published online the names of every producer receiving federal payouts and how much they were paid. The move was meant to stir public outrage — and it did, with national media coverage. But the tidal wave of attention slowed to a ripple, and by the time the conference committee had merged House and Senate requirements for the bill, the Continued on page S 49