Hi all, Here is something that will be of interest to U.S. farmers. I suppose it's off list because it's not BD. It's from a Montana environmental ag activist, Jill Davies, who posts good stuff to her "list."
Merla jill davies wrote: > Farm Bill Update From Nancy Matheson: > > Hi, > Just a quick update on the farm bill. I wanted to touch on a couple of > issues and programs of special interest to the sustainable ag community. I > will give a fuller report after the Senate vote and when more details and > analysis is available. > > Earlier this week, the House-Senate conference committee arrived at > compromise legislation. The House passed the conference bill yesterday. The > Senate will vote as early as tomorrow. > > What's in the conference and now final House bill: > > In general, this bill represents a return to former commodity-based > payments of the past 50 years, with target price subsidies based on a > farmer's average yields. This approach was done away with in the 1996 > Freedom to Farm bill and is now resurrected. However, farmers will continue > to have the flexibility to plant what they choose, an important feature > held over from Freedom to Farm. In all, this bill increases farm > spending by more than 70 percent, and continues policies that reward the > largest producers who historically have grown one or more of a few favored > commodities. > > Of particular interest to the sustainable ag community: > > 1. The Conservation Security Program survived the conference process, but > with only $2 billion. This means it may not be an entitlement program as it > was designed by the Senate. Payment rates will be adjusted downward, too. > The gist of this program is that farmers will be eligible for "green > payments" based on conservation measures they have implemented on their > farms, with higher payments rewarding whole farm > approaches. Most organic farmers would be eligible for the top tier of > payments. This program rewards > conservation on working lands (unlike CRP which retires land) and applies > to all sizes and types of producers regardless of commodity grown. The > amount of money for this program is a disappointment, but it is a start on > a new incentives-based approach to farm subsidies, more akin to Europe's > green payments. > > 2. Language was added to the Value Added section of the Rural Development > title that makes it work better for family farms, ranches and their > communities, and it recognizes that how a good is produced has value.The > value-added grants program doesn't do all that was hoped, but some of the > eligibility language drafted by the National Campaign for Sustainable > Agriculture (language I worked on) made it into the final bill, and > includes renewable ag-energy projects and organic marketing. This program > gets $60 million annually for an expanded Value-Added Agricultural Products > Market Development Grants program, and $75 million annually for grants to > independent producers and nonprofits, with priority to proposals requesting > less than $200,000. At least 5% of the funding will assist producers of > certified organic agricultural products. > > Another $40 million annually is for value-added project grants and is the > section containing some of the language from the National Campaign > (underlined below) : > > "The Managers intend that the Department, in administering the program, > will seek to fund a broad diversity of projects that help increase > agricultural producers' share of the food and agricultural system profit, > including projects likely to increase the profitability and viability of > small and medium-sized farms and ranches. The Managers intend for the > Department to consider a project's potential for creating > self-employment opportunities in farming and ranching and the likelihood > that the project will contribute to conserving and enhancing the quality of > land, water and other natural resources. When making these grants, the > Managers expect the Secretary to consider applications from a variety of > agricultural sectors, such as > renewable energy, wineries, high value products from major crops, > agri-marketing ventures, and > community supported agricultural projects. The inclusion of renewable > energy includes farm or ranch based wind, solar, hydrogen, and other > renewable energy...." > > This value-added provision also establishes an Agriculture Innovation > Center Demonstration Program (from the House bill, sponsored by MT Rep. > Rehberg). These centers will provide producers with technical assistance, > marketing, and development assistance for value-added agricultural > businesses to the tune of $5 million for fiscal year 2002 and at least $10 > million for fiscal years 2003 and 2004. > > 3. Country-of-origin labeling on meat and produce survived, but doesn't > take effect for 2 years. > 4. Killed was the ban on meat packer ownership of livestock. > 5. Killed were reasonable limits on EQUIP payments (Environmental Quality > Incentives Program) according to farm size and multiple projects, > interepreted as helping the expansion of CAFOs (confined animal feeding > operations). EQUIP funding goes way up over previous years. > > 6. Provisions limiting the size of payments to any single entity or > individual actually went up instead of down. They are now at something over > $300,000. Progressives attempted to set them at $50,000 so as not to > disproportionately benefit the largest producers. > > There will be more news coming, but the above is fairly reflective of what > we should expect the final law to look like. I will report on IFAFS and > further organic ag research and marketing provisions as I learn them. > > Nancy > > ===================================== > Nancy Matheson, NCAT Agriculture Specialist > National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT) > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Home office: 3845 Hart Lane, Helena, MT 59602 > Ph. and fax (406) 227-0389 > NCAT Website: www.ncat.org > ATTRA Website: www.attra.org > ===================================== > > "The world doesn't need to be saved, it just needs to be loved." --Tsipi > Mankovsky > > ~~ Jill Davies - - [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~ > How we treat the Land is determined by how we view ourselves. > ~~~~~The machine model kills living systems.~~~~~ > www.aliantha.com
