Global Development: Views from the Center

In addition to drastically scaling back subsidies it would be very helpful if US Government food aid programs would commit to purchase some or all of its food aid from regional sources. This would help strengthen efficient producers of grain on the continent, while at the same time help modernize grain marketing systems. Transacting grain within Africa is hugely inefficient...food aid programs could help modernize this system, helping to move food from surplus to deficit areas.

Who is working on lobbying for a new/reformed farm bill? When do they start and who are their allies? I would like to volunteer to do something.

Perhaps there are some opportunities in introducing this issue to the freshman class of policy makers under the broader umbrella of international policy priorities?

There is a broad coalition of groups working for reform in the next farm bill – environmental groups (Environmental Defense, American Farmland Trust, Environmental Working Group), anti-hunger and poverty organizations (Bread for the World, Oxfam America, Church World Service), and fiscal conservatives (Cato Institute, Taxpayers for Common Sense) to name just a few. We are thinking about the education that policymakers would find most useful. Ideas and volunteers welcome!

Bread for the World’s interest in the farm bill, beyond the nutrition title, originally stemmed from its commitment to global economic justice, and the fact that US farm policy has negative impacts on small farmers throughout Africa. But though the initial impetus for looking at our agriculture policy was focused overseas, we soon realized that the farm bill is also failing to achieve its domestic policy goals.

People in rural America are more likely to be hungry and poor than urban residents, and most of these people do not farm for their living. Two-thirds of rural jobs are in the service sector. A rural policy centered on production agriculture is not an effective tool for strengthening rural economies.

Even for those who do farm, the existing commodity programs are not the best way to mitigate the risks small and medium-sized farmers face. Many of these farmers are able to stay in business because of the payments they do receive through the commodity programs, but just barely. Because they are tied to how much a producer grows, program benefits are concentrated among those who grow the most. In addition, farm payments are provided for a few select crops, a limitation that excludes the vast majority of farmers from receiving government assistance.

By tying payments to just a few commodity crops, farm programs also discourage farmers from diversifying their farm operations to include the production of fruits and vegetables. The farm bill could be a powerful tool in helping to meet the nutritional needs of all Americans, an important goal given the skyrocketing rate of overweight and obesity, particularly among low-income households. Coupling incentives to grow and consume fruits and vegetables with a strong food stamp program (also authorized through the farm bill) could reduce hunger and improve nutrition for all Americans.

The farm bill should become a rural bill, based on the realities of rural economies, which include but are no longer dominated by agriculture. We must find an alternative way to help farmers manage their economic risk and a better way to help rural America create jobs that offer secure livelihoods for all its residents. This, with a strong nutrition safety net, would be the most effective use of taxpayer dollars.

3 comments:

1)Your point about non-program crop farmers is well taken, but we have yet to see a willingness on their part to make a full-fledged attack on Title I subsidies.

2) Don't forget the environmentalists, who want to see more farm conservation programs, not more direct payments.

3)The key, politically, is to break the alliance between the commodity groups (rurual legislators) and domestic food stamp/nutrition advocates (urban legislators) that has allowed such egregious farm programs to continue. Each side has supported the other's wants in exchange for votes. The case that farm policy reform is good for urban consumers and will free up more money for domestic nutrition programs is important for changing the political dynamic.

These are all great comments and I think they suggest a great deal of momentum behind the push for farm bill reforms next year. And I don't think that reform necessarily requires a frontal assault on the Title I programs. The producers of non-program crops want more money for things of interest to them--marketing assistance (eg healthy fruit and vegetable snacks and lunches in schools), R&D, and conservation; the environmentalists also want more money on conservation programs, and Bread for the World and other advocacy groups want improved and expanded nutrition programs.

These competing demands, combined with broader pressures to cut the budget deficit, will squeeze funding for traditional Title I subsidies. An overhaul of farm policy is the preferred option. But if that is not yet possible, significant improvements could be made within the basic structure by shifting money away from corn, cotton, and rice subsidies and towards conservation, nutrition, and rural development.

I think America will be better off eliminating food subsidies for the following reasons.
1. Farmers from developing countries will have a market for their produce hence uplifting their living standards thereby reducing poverty.
2. As a result of the above point Farmers from developing countries will have disposable income and can then purchase manufactured products which could come from the US manufacturing sector

I think we should concentrate on what will bering the most benefit to all.

The story is alright but what I don't get is why america does not want food subsidies