Farm Bill Reform Must Incentivize Sustainable Practices
American Farmland Trust (AFT) urged Congress on March 15 to consider the environmental impacts of farm safety-net reform and reiterated key AFT policy positions in support of a strong and equitable farm support system.
The group’s comments came in response to the Senate Agriculture Committee hearing, “Risk Management and Commodities in the 2012 Farm Bill.” The hearing underscored the consensus that crop insurance is positioned to become the primary risk management tool for farmers, while reform of other farm programs is still evolving.
“Conservation compliance measures should be reattached to the federal crop insurance program—the new farm safety net—in order to protect the long-term productivity of vulnerable land,” said AFT President Jon Scholl. Scholl’s comment was triggered by a comment during the hearing which asserted that tying conservation compliance measures to crop insurance would discourage participation in the federal crop insurance program. Scholl noted, “Conservation compliance didn’t discourage participation in farm programs; it won’t in crop insurance either.”
Currently, farmers must apply approved soil conservation systems to highly erodible cropland and refrain from draining wetlands to maintain eligibility for agricultural support programs. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), federally subsidized crop insurance is the only large USDA program that is not currently subject to conservation compliance.
“We support a strong farm safety net in order to keep farmers on the land producing food for our country. However, a safety net is not complete if it creates long-term threats to farm productivity by incentivizing farming practices that jeopardize our soil and water,” Scholl continued. AFT believes the facts clearly show that managing risk with crop insurance has the same impact on our soil and water resources as managing risk with farm programs of the past.
“Congress is about to undertake the most far-reaching reform of farm safety-net programs since the 1996 Farm Bill,” explained Scholl. “As the Agriculture Committee crafts this reform package, it must also remain mindful of the potential impact farm program changes could have on the environment and on conservation practices.”
Risk-management programs that take away too much economic risk result in producer decisions driven by government payments rather than the market, Scholl noted. Those distortions, he added, have real consequences for the environment by encouraging production in areas that cannot be farmed in an environmentally sustainable manner. “Economic and environmental sustainability must go hand in hand,” Scholl said.
“We can do this by maintaining strong funding support for conservation programs that help farmers manage their soil and water resources. Congress should also stand firm on the principle that farms with highly erodible land that receive federal subsidies be required to have a conservation plan,” Scholl said.
AFT had previously laid out four key principles in addition to compliance that it believes should guide the development of the 2012 Farm Bill’s risk management title. “In light of yesterday’s hearing, we again encourage Congress to refer to these principles as they write the 2012 Farm Bill,” said Scholl. AFT urges that the 2012 Farm Bill’s risk management programs should:
- Respond to markets and be revenue-based. Revenue protection should be triggered by current prices and yields, not historic averages.
- Complement, not duplicate, crop insurance. The Bill should ensure that crop insurance and commodity support programs do not overlap, but rather work in concert.
- Require accountability. Farmers should receive assistance only if they sustain an objective, real loss.
- Minimize distortion. Government payments should not determine where and how intensively crops are grown.
(More on AFT’s Farm Safety Net proposal can be found by clicking here.)
For more information, click here.
By Robin Scher
Beyond the questions surrounding the availability, effectiveness and safety of a vaccine, the COVID-19 pandemic has led us to question where our food is coming from and whether we will have enough.
- Can Urban Farms Prevent Hunger in 54 Million People in the U.S. ... ›
- New Report Finds Malnutrition World's Top Killer Amid Pandemic ... ›
- Oxfam Warns 12,000 Could Die Per Day From Hunger Due to ... ›
- Three Ways to Support a Healthy Food System During the COVID ... ›
- Trump USDA Resumes Effort to Cut Food Stamp Benefits - EcoWatch ›
- Pandemic Threatens Food Security for Many College Students ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Tearing through the crowded streets of Philadelphia, an electric car and a gas-powered car sought to win a heated race. One that mimicked how cars are actually used. The cars had to stop at stoplights, wait for pedestrians to cross the street, and swerve in and out of the hundreds of horse-drawn buggies. That's right, horse-drawn buggies. Because this race took place in 1908. It wanted to settle once and for all which car was the superior urban vehicle. Although the gas-powered car was more powerful, the electric car was more versatile. As the cars passed over the finish line, the defeat was stunning. The 1908 Studebaker electric car won by 10 minutes. If in 1908, the electric car was clearly the better form of transportation, why don't we drive them now? Today, I'm going to answer that question by diving into the history of electric cars and what I discovered may surprise you.
As bitcoin's fortunes and prominence rise, so do concerns about its environmental impact.
- 15 Top Conservation Issues of 2021 Include Big Threats, Potential ... ›
- How Blockchain Could Boost Clean Energy - EcoWatch ›
By David Drake and Jeffrey York
The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.
The Big Idea
People often point to plunging natural gas prices as the reason U.S. coal-fired power plants have been shutting down at a faster pace in recent years. However, new research shows two other forces had a much larger effect: federal regulation and a well-funded activist campaign that launched in 2011 with the goal of ending coal power.
- Major Milestone: More than 100,000 MW Worth of Coal-Fired Power ... ›
- Coal Will Not Bring Appalachia Back to Life, But Tech and ... ›
- Renewables Beat Coal in the U.S. for the First Time This April ... ›