Calling for an end to 'business-as-usual' farming practices

Agriculture has degraded 35 percent of the world’s severely degraded land, and it will only get worse unless there’s a long-term shift to sustainable agriculture, a new study says.

International Commission Calls for ‘Paradigm Shift’ in Agriculture

by Ben Block, Worldwatch Institute

A commission of international agriculture experts unveiled a series of reports on Wednesday calling for an end to "business-as-usual" farming practices to avoid widespread environmental degradation and increasing food scarcity.

The group of more than 400 experts, known as the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD), concluded through its global and regional studies that governments and industries need to discontinue environmentally damaging farming methods. Farmers should have greater access to agricultural technology and science, especially in the developing world, to ensure productivity increases without further environmental degradation, the reports say.

The commission's conclusions come during one of the most severe food crises since the productivity boom of the Green Revolution. Rising prices for basic commodities such as rice, wheat, and corn have led to violent protests around the world, from Haiti to Egypt to the Philippines. Widespread environmental degradation and uneven distribution policies are contributing to shortages, especially in the developing world, the reports say.

(More here.)

We agree with George Will — again!

U.S. farm subsidies need to be reexamined

Twice in a week we've found something we like from the sometime blowhard George Will. Time was when you could expect Mr. Will to say something reasonable on a regular basis. Then George Bush II ascended to the throne of government and Mr. Will became for the most part another pseudo-conservative — meaning "not a real conservative" — mouthpiece for the man who has become both court jester and president at the same time.

(My apologies to the honorable and well-respected profession of court jesting.)

At any rate, Mr. Will may be returning to his old self, and we welcome that!

Reweaving the safety net for American farms

It's far past time to end price supports for specific crops. The well-qualified Sen. Richard Luger has a plan.

By George F. Will, Washington Post

... America's prodigiously productive farmers are never more so than when a minority of them are cultivating Capitol Hill. Their lobbyists have toiled to preserve the New Deal approach. They stress the romance of the family farm, but their fog of sentimentality obscures pertinent facts:

Fifty-seven percent of farms receive no payments and two-thirds of those that do receive less than $10,000. The largest 8 percent of farms receive 58 percent of the payments. Farms with revenues of $250,000 or more receive payments averaging $70,000. Lugar wants to redirect the flow of federal funds, from subsidizing favored crops to rural development, because fewer than 14 percent of residents in rural areas work on farms.

Under the continuing New Deal approach, five commodities -- corn, soybeans, cotton, rice and wheat -- got about 90 percent of last year's $19 billion in subsidies. This is a perverse incentive for overproduction of the five, which depresses prices, which triggers federal supports.

Lugar, who proposes capping annual farm assistance at $30,000 per recipient, is attempting reform at a time when federal energy policy is making matters worse. By subsidizing corn-based ethanol, the government is making the "crop specific" approach to subsidies increasingly irrational: Ethanol enthusiasm has produced a one-year increase of 12 percent in acres planted in corn, the price of which has risen 20 percent in a year. So farmers are planting fewer acres in soybeans, which therefore also are being made more expensive by federal policy. Furthermore, U.S. agriculture subsidies, which have the World Trade Organization properly frowning, are becoming major impediments to further liberalization of global trade, and hence to the huge potential growth of U.S. farmers' incomes from exports....

Agriculture policy -- another manifestation of the welfare state, another contributor to another faction's entitlement mentality -- involves a perennial conundrum of welfare, corporate as well as individual: How do you break an addiction to government without breaking the addicted?

The entire article is here.

Farm Subsidies and Political Contributions

Giving to your congressman does pay off, but measuring the results is not that simple

by Leigh Pomeroy

It stands to reason that those politicians whose districts most benefit from agriculture receive the most political contributions from the agribusiness sector. But how can we prove that?

Thanks to the Environmental Working Group and opensecrets.org, Vox Verax and Minnesota Monitor have been able to draw a few cautious conclusions. What we found indicate that political contributions to representatives of districts that rely heavily on agriculture do yield farm subsidies returned to those districts. But it's not that simple.

Minnesota has eight congressional districts. Two are mostly urban (4 and 5), three mostly suburban (2, 3 and 6), and three mostly rural (1, 7 and 8). Districts 3, 4 and 5 have virtually no agriculture. Districts 2, 6 & 8 have some agriculture. And districts 1 and 7 have strong agricultural based economies, with district 7 relying almost entirely on agriculture for its economic base.

From table below it is clear that districts 1 and 7 receive by far the lion's share of agricultural subsidies, commanding fully $8.1 billion of the $9.3 billion doled out to Minnesota farmers between 1995 and 2005 — some 88 percent of all Minnesota farm subsidies.

It also shows that the U.S. representatives in those districts received the most campaign contributions from the agribusiness sector, and that agribusiness donations to those representatives yielded the best return if measured by farm subsidies — at $4,779 (Peterson) and $4,747 (Gutknecht) per dollar of donation.

Member	District	Total subsidies 1995-2005, in millions	Subsidies per farm (1995-2005)	Total agribusiness donations	Agribusiness donations as % of total donations	Amount of subsidy per $ of agribusiness donation (adjusted for years in donation sample)	Years in donation sample
Collin Peterson	D-Minn. 7	$4,810.0	$147,415	$1,006,407	22.2%	$4,779	1989-2006
Gil Gutknecht	R-Minn. 1	$3,310.0	$154,789	$697,277	10.6%	$4,747	1989-2006
John Kline	R-Minn. 2	$613.0	$90,360	$286,794	4.5%	$2,137	1989-2006
Jim Oberstar	D-Minn. 8	$244.0	$19,336	$200,200	3.1%	$1,219	1989-2006
Mark Kennedy	R-Minn. 2 (2000-02), 6 (2002-06)	$280.0	$41,847	$362,416	6.8%	$1,031	1989-2004
Jim Ramstad	R-Minn. 3	$19.5	$32,500	$299,967	3.8%	$65	1989-2006
Betty McCollum	D-Minn. 4	$1.8	$16,216	$53,409	1.7%	$34	1989-2006
Martin Sabo	D-Minn. 5	$0.7	$33,333	$129,300	3.5%	$5	1989-2004

In tabulating our results we included only those representatives who were in office through 2006. We did not include any of the legislators who took office in 2007: Reps. Michele Bachmann, Keith Ellison or Tim Walz.

Our process was to look at total farm subsidies from 1995 to 2005. From that we figured the total number of subsidies per farm over the same period of time. Then we took the total amount of donations from the agribusiness sector for each representative from 1989 to the present day (or the end of their careers in Congress) and figured the percentage that those donations made up of the total donations. Finally, we tabulated the amount of money returned to each district in farm subsidies per donation dollar.

While this chart gives an indication of where agribusiness money is going and what results it achieves, it is hardly conclusive. For one thing, political money in support of agriculture can come from many sectors, not just agribusiness. Examples include transportation (e.g. railroads), other business (e.g. food wholesalers), and finance, insurance and real estate (e.g. insurance companies and banks that specialize in farm business). These figures are not included in the results.

Further, agribusiness interests may give campaign contributions to representatives of primarily urban areas for other reasons. For example, production, warehousing and shipping facilities, as well as corporate headquarters, may be located in those districts.

Nevertheless, the figures indicate that agribusiness donations yield results if measured by farm subsidies.

The farm bill of 2006 will be a highly complex, book-length tome covering issues much broader that what happens on America's farms. It will be a challenge to understand for even those who know the issues involved. As for the majority of Americans whose only knowledge of the farm extends to shrink-wrapped packages of meat, displays of fresh produce under misting nozzles and the occasional news story of contaminated food, they have little option but to trust what their representatives in Congress will decide.

Who's Benefiting from Farm Subsidies? A Primer

by Leigh Pomeroy

In the coming weeks Vox Verax and Minnesota Monitor will be looking at farm policy. We will attempt -- and this is a grand challenge -- to make this information understandable for regular folks living in the city whose knowledge of these issues extends not much further than the produce section of their local Lunds, Byerly's, Cub, Rainbow, co-op, or other grocery store.

Minnesota Monitor will be learning along the way as well, for this is an incredibly complex issue involving not just agriculture but issues of environment, energy, trade, rural economies, social responsibility, quality of life and much more. Put simply: Farms can exist without cities, but cities cannot exist without farms.

I'd like to say that we're going to approach this subject in a logical, step-by-step fashion. But since farm policy is not set up that way, to try to put it in such a neat progression is very difficult, if not pure folly.

In many ways, farm policy resembles health care policy in the United States. It is built upon a makeshift system that worked at one time but has since become obsolete. But it is embedded into the fabric of our society, and thus changing it is akin to performing surgery — a painful process even with generous amounts of anesthesia.

Is this any different from any other country in the world? No. For all countries are struggling with 19th and 20th century farm policies while facing 21st century problems and needs.

Whereas once farm policy in the U.S. affected primarily those within its borders, today U.S. farm policy impacts every corner of the globe. Thus, when we make our farm policy decisions this year and in the future, we must be cognizant of their impact on the planet for generations to come.

Americans take for granted cheap food. For example, wholesale pork and beef prices have declined over 50 percent since 1970, adjusted for inflation. Meanwhile, energy costs, which are a huge factor in food production and shipping to market, have nearly doubled.

There are several reasons for the decreasing price of food. These include new technologies, hybridization, chemical and fertilizer advancements, larger farms (creating economies of scale), lower trade barriers and farm subsidies. While many of these are advancements, they also create costs that, while not apparent in the price of food, emerge elsewhere in societal balance sheets. For example, farm chemicals and fertilizers create huge environmental costs; lower trade barriers can undermine third world country economies; and farm subsidies can create an artificial domestic economy, rewarding accounting proficiency and but also farm inefficiency.

Today we will deal with something basic to U.S. farming in the 21st century: subsidies.

Farm subsidies arose in the 1930s when farmers were truly desperate. The farm economy was collapsing along with much of the rest of the country. In order to keep the U.S. economy going, Congress and President Franklin D. Roosevelt instituted a broad spectrum of programs. These included encouraging farmers to stay on their farms.

Some 70 years later, as grist magazine has pointed out, subsidies have become a "Short-Term Solution That Stuck."

Like any welfare program, subsidies can lead to entitlement, even addiction. In Minnesota and South Dakota, for example, we recently witnessed the effrontery that agricultural interests felt when the Federal Railroad Administration turned down a proposed $2.3 billion taxpayer-subsidized loan for the DM&E railroad.

Most economists agree that in order to reach true economic balance in the world, the fewer trade barriers we have the better off we will be. Yet moving from a system that is highly impacted by government policy can be very painful for those who have done well by that system. And dismantling trade barriers does not just mean eliminating duties, taxes and allocations. It means doing away with internal economic incentives as well.

Such change cannot be achieved overnight -- nor should it be. A balancing of agricultural production and trade needs to take place over years, perhaps decades, perhaps even generations. Short-term solutions will not do.

That said, I will close with a simple table showing which congressional districts in Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota are receiving the most farm subsidies. Keep in mind that the current officeholders in those districts are not necessarily responsible for this largesse, as these subsidies have come about over many decades. Thus, current legislators should not be blamed for these policies; rather, they should be encouraged to explore ways to make U.S. farm policy beneficial not only to Americans but citizens worldwide.

Member	District	Total subsidies 1995-2005, in millions	Subsidies per capita (1995-2005)	Number of farms (2002)	Subsidies per farm (1995-2005)
Earl Pomeroy*	D-N.D. at-large	$7,040.0	$11,548	30,619	$229,923
Stephanie Herseth*	D-S.D. at-large	$5,560.0	$7,453	31,736	$175,195
Collin Peterson*	D-Minn. 7	$4,810.0	$8,014	32,629	$147,415
Tim Walz*	D-Minn. 1	$3,310.0	$5,473	21,384	$154,789
John Kline	R-Minn. 2	$613.0	$889	6,784	$90,360
Michele Bachmann	R-Minn. 6	$280.0	$405	6,691	$41,847
Jim Oberstar	D-Minn. 8	$244.0	$390	12,619	$19,336
Jim Ramstad	R-Minn. 3	$19.5	$31	600	$32,500
Betty McCollum	D-Minn. 4	$1.8	$3	111	$16,216
Keith Ellison	D-Minn. 5	$.7	$1	21	$33,333

*Indicates member of House Agricultural Committee. Rep. Peterson is chair of that committee. Sources: Environmental Working Group and USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service.

Coming up: Who's getting the big subsidies and how much are they investing in their congressmen and senators?