Tag Archive | "farm subsidies"

10 Steps Backwards for Wildlife in the House Ag Committee Farm Bill

10 Steps Backwards for Wildlife in the House Ag Committee Farm Bill

In the early hours of the morning on Thursday, July 12th the House Committee on Agriculture passed a Farm Bill that cuts conservation while expanding insurance and price support programs that will encourage habitat destruction on lands and wetlands poorly suited to produce food for America. Here are the ten most problematic provisions in the House Committee bill.

  1. Funding Cuts for Conservation: Conservation funding has been cut by more than $6 billion, with the steepest cuts to the Conservation Reserve Program, likely resulting in at least 5 million acres of grassland, stream buffers and wetland habitat coming out of the program and going under the plow.
  2. Dedicated Funding for Wildlife Eliminated: The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, a popular and effective program, is eliminated in both the Senate and House bills but the Senate creates opportunity for wildlife funding through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) with a minimum 5 percent of program funding going to wildlife.  The House makes this set aside for wildlife a 5 percent maximum, meaning that many farmers with wildlife projects will likely be turned away.
  3. More Expensive Crop Insurance Subsidies: Annual taxpayer subsidies to crop insurance companies and farmers’ insurance premiums have already gone up by more than $6 billion over the last decade.  The Agriculture Committee proposes another $9 billion increase which is structured in ways that make the taxpayer bear the risk while encouraging farmers to plow fragile lands that are poorly suited to food production.
  4. Conservation Compact between Farmers and Taxpayers Destroyed:Conservation compliance’ has been a deal between farmers and taxpayers for more than 25 years.  In exchange for public support, farmers agree to modest protections for soil, water and wildlife on approximately 500 million acres of farmland.  The House Agriculture Committee chose to ignore the Senate’s extension of this compact that recent polls show has the support of the majority of farmers themselves.
  5. Modest Habitat Protections Voted Down: A limited version of conservation compliance called ‘sodsaver’ was also rejected by the Agriculture Committee despite strong support from hunters and fishermen, environmentalists, the ethanol industry and National Farmers Union.  This provision would have made farmers who plow up wetlands or the less than 1 percent of virgin prairie remaining in America ineligible for crop insurance for just five years.  Even this moderate penalty failed to pass the Committee, despite evidence that compliance provisions have been successful  and provide a net economic benefit.
  6. Reduced Support for Organic Farming: The Committee tilts an already tilted playing field further toward industrial agriculture.  It eliminates dedicated support to help farmers use less pesticide and go organic by repealing the National Organic Certification Cost Share program, reduces funding for organic research and maintains barriers that impede organic farmers’ efforts to insure their crops.
  7. Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Zeroed Out: No support is provided for renewable energy, eliminating what were highly successful programs to help capture methane emissions from dairies and feedlots, energy audits, and other programs that have helped thousands of farms reduce energy bills and fossil fuel use and switch to renewable energy sources.
  8. No Oversight of Pesticide Application into Waterways: Section 10017 of the House farm bill axes all Clean Water Act protections for pesticides that are sprayed directly into waterways.  This would result in the direct application of pesticides into streams and rivers without any oversight, as the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) – the law under which pesticides are registered – does not require tracking of such pesticide applications.
  9. Blocks Protection of Endangered Species from Pesticides: Section 10016 of the House farm bill puts the interests of pesticide manufacturers ahead of the health of our wildlife and communities.  This section prescribes non-science based roadblocks and delays for measures recommended by federal wildlife experts to protect endangered species from pesticides.  This spells disaster for species already on the brink of extinction because of pesticides and other threats.
  10. Increased Logging in our National Forests: Section 8301 would give the Forest Service broad discretion to designate sweeping areas of our National Forests for expanded logging, roadbuilding and other development by exploiting the danger of wildfires and harmful pests.  Projects in these “critical areas” would be permitted to move forward with almost no environmental review or public involvement, and projects as large as 1,000 acres would not be required to have any environmental review at all. This provision would undercut public involvement and important environmental analysis that protects water and wildlife on our public lands.

Posted in AgricultureComments (0)

House Farm Bill: Continued Subsidies at the Cost of Wildlife

House Farm Bill: Continued Subsidies at the Cost of Wildlife

America’s wildlife benefit from what has been more than $5 billion in annual conservation support through the Farm Bill, but these investments in our natural heritage are threatened by crop insurance subsidies from the same bill that encourage farmers to plow grassland, wetland and forest. While the Senate’s version of the 2012 Farm Bill contains an amendment that requires farmers receiving crop insurance subsidies to take basic conservation measures to protect soil, water and wildlife (provisions known as “conservation compliance”), the draft House Farm Bill does not include conservation compliance. Failure to link conservation compliance to crop insurance subsidies could have major impacts on species like sage grouse.Map of sage grouse range and agricultural expansion

Sage grouse are dependent on sage brush habitat for nesting and food sources and much of this sage brush habitat overlaps with farmland in the western U.S. –  31 percent of sage grouse range is privately owned.

New analysis from the Environmental Working Group shows that increased crop production is leading to grassland (and wetland) loss in parts of the sage grouse range. More than half a million acres of habitat has been plowed under in just three years.

Conservation compliance has been proven to protect clean water, prevent soil erosion and preserve wildlife on millions of acres of America’s farmland. In order to protect vital habitat for sage grouse and other species that depend on grasslands and wetlands, the House should take similar action to the Senate and add conservation compliance requirements back into crop insurance subsidies as the bill moves through the chamber later this week.

Posted in Agriculture, Imperiled WildlifeComments (0)

Budget Savings, Wildlife Benefits, and Family Farmer Benefits from Limiting Government Subsidies to the Largest Farms

Farm program subsidies, crop prices, and land values all tripled in the Dakotas in just 15 years, as has the loss of prairie pothole grassland.  Eastern North Dakota lost 10% to 15% of wetlands and grassland to crop use in just three years.  At this rate, most of the remaining grassland habitat in this major nesting region for ducks and shorebirds will be gone in just 15 years.

This is not a good time to abandon 25 years of protection for wetlands and grasslands, but crucial protections will vanish unless the Senate amends the farm bill recently passed by the Senate Agricultural Committee.  Fortunately, a budget smart farm bill amendment by Senators Toomey and Shaheen aims to save billions of tax dollars by limiting federal crop insurance subsidies to the largest farmers to $40,000 per farm.  Since the larger farmers own the great majority of the land, these subsidy limits also considerably reduce major farm program drivers for prairie grassland and wetland conversion.

Limiting crop insurance subsidies to $40,000 per farm primarily aims to reduce the federal budget deficit.  This works because subsidy limits especially affect the largest 10% of crop farms, who enjoy 75% of the program payments.  These giant farming operations historically increase their subsidies by adding more cropland.  They expand 1) by buying other farms, 2) by renting, and 3) by plowing up prairie pothole grassland.  But farmers large enough to already reach the proposed $40,000 payment limit no-longer will increase their subsidy by increasing cropland area.  Today’s more than 90 percent of farms, and all small farms, will not be directly affected by the proposed subsidy limits because their government subsidies are less than $40,000.  They own a very small portion of the crop land in the U.S., even though they still make up the vast majority of farms.  Subsidy limits actually help them compete.

Although the farm bill under consideration in the Senate (S3240) virtually eliminates compliance and swampbuster protection, Senator Cardin introduced a Senate amendment (2219) to re-introduce these important protections which have been part of farm programs for 25 years.  We think that this amendment is crucial, but its focus is soil conservation and wetland protection, not grasslands.  The $40,000 per farm limits on crop insurance subsidies, which Senators Toomey and Shaheen introduced in another amendment, reduces program pressures to plow up more prairie grassland and drain wetlands.

For over three decades, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has cautioned that farm subsidies could tilt the playing field toward the largest farmers, who capture so much of the subsidies, and away from more modest, family farms.  Meaningful payment limits address these uneven playing field problems, as well as the above budget and wildlife problems.

Meaningful subsidy limits address perverse incentives to expand cropland acreage, whether that expansion occurs by buying up neighboring farms or by busting out more prairie pothole grassland and draining wetlands.  The Senate has an opportunity simultaneously to achieve substantial budget savings, to provide major wildlife benefits, and to better serve family farms.

Posted in Paying for ConservationComments (0)


dotWild is the blog of scientists and policy experts at Defenders of Wildlife, a national, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to the protection of all native animals and plants in their natural communities.

www.defenders.org