|
White House farm bill proposal pleasant surprise for enviros |
|
|
|
|
The Bush administration's proposal yesterday to increase spending for conservation incentives in the next farm bill is meeting the praise of environmental groups, who were concerned that the administration's budget crunch could leave the programs flatlined.
Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns unveiled his proposal for the next farm bill yesterday. It would increase spending for conservation programs by $7.8 billion over the next 10 years and more than double the funds for renewable energy and biomass research. It also adds conservation payments to the farmer subsidy system for the first time.
"This is not your grandfather's farm bill," said Ken Cook of the Environmental Working Group, who has been a critic of the current subsidy payment structure. "This has planted the flag of reform."
Cook and other environmentalists have called for a total overhaul of farm support, throwing out many of the subsidies and adding more conservation-based payments.
The administration's proposals were much more modest but did make steps in that direction. The plan would exclude anyone who makes more than $200,000 from farm payments, essentially shutting out agribusinesses from the subsidy program. For everyone else, the bill would keep the current payment cap of $360,000 per year.
It also shifts toward more direct payments than those based on commodity production. Farmers would receive payments based on the total income of the farm, rather than the price of the crop.
The administration also proposed including some new conservation requirements within the "title one" programs, which some environmental lobbyists said came as a welcome surprise. Title one of the farm bill makes up the "safety net" of direct payments and commodity subsidies that help support farmers. The payments are the largest portion of farm bill spending besides food assistance.
Under the administration's proposal, farmers could opt out of other commodity support programs in favor of a 10 percent increase in direct payments for making environmental improvements. Department of Agriculture officials said the approved conservation practices would be dealt with in rulemaking.
"We would like to see it go further and see a lot more of linkage between stewardship and the safety net, but we're excited that the administration is incorporating stewardship at all in the safety net," said Sarah Hopper of Environmental Defense.
The administration also proposed a "sodsaver" rule that would bar farmers from any subsidies if they plowed up existing grasslands -- a move favored by environmental and hunting groups.
Many of the major farm lobbyist groups were somewhat muted on the proposal yesterday. The changes to the subsidy payments were less revolutionary than some trade and environmental groups had hoped for but not as sweeping as was feared by some farm commodity groups, who like the current bill.
National Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman released a statement that said he was still examining the plan but that his group, in general, does not want the farm bill to stray too far from the 2002 payment structure. The Farm Bureau has also favored increasing conservation and energy payments.
The National Farmers Union, one of the most hardline groups on payment reform, came out against the administration's shift to more direct payments. Dairy producers expressed concern, while the sugar alliance was relieved their farmers were not cut out.
CRP raises concerns
Within the conservation title, environmental groups were pleased to see the administration propose an increase in overall spending, though they were concerned about some of the proposed changes, especially the Conservation Reserve Program.
Johanns proposed reauthorizing CRP, which pays farmers to idle marginal cropland, but allowing some of the land to go into biomass production. The administration's proposal would give priority to farmers who would use part of the land for biomass production, an idea that has not flown with wildlife and hunting groups who say it could compromise the wildlife benefits on CRP land.
"We need to see adequate research that proves beyond a doubt that the past 20 years of conservation and wildlife gains CRP has provided will not be compromised by biofuels production and harvesting," said Dave Nomsen of Pheasants Forever.
House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) seems to be in line with wildlife groups. "I don't think that makes any sense at all," Peterson said yesterday of the CRP proposal.
Elsewhere in the conservation title, the administration proposed a $4.2 billion increase -- over 10 years -- for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, which pays farmers to make environmental improvements on working farmland. It also proposed an expansion of the Wetlands Reserve Program, which gives farmers cash for converting marginal cropland into wetlands.
"There are some clear indications in today's proposal that the administration has heard many of the concerns of our community and has acted on them," said Jen Mock Schaeffer, farm bill coordinator for the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
 |
|
Last Updated ( Thursday, 18 October 2007 )
|
Subscribe to this comment's feed
