Dear EarthTalk: How do green groups feel about the new 2012 Farm Bill draft recently released by the Senate? - Roger Wheeler, Miami, FL
Photo Credit: Stockbyte
Some green groups, such as the Environmental Working Group, applaud parts of the 2012 Farm Bill that support healthy diets, organic farmers and links between local growers and consumers. But they are critical of provisions they say only continue subsidies for highly profitable farms while ignoring needed protections for wetlands, grasslands and soil health.
Like so much of the legislation coming out of Washington, D.C., green groups are mixed on the new Farm Bill now making its way toward a floor vote. No doubt there are some conservation bright spots in the bill, but the question is: Are there enough and do they go far enough?
The non-profit Environmental Working Group (EWG) doesn’t think so.“Unfortunately, the bill ... will do more harm than good,” says Craig Cox, an agriculture and natural resources expert at EWG. “It needlessly sacrifices conservation and feeding assistance programs to finance unlimited insurance subsidies and a new entitlement program for highly profitable farm businesses.” Cox is critical of the new bill for essentially replacing one subsidy to large successful farms (those which need it least) with another: “Rather than simply ending the widely discredited direct payment program, the Senate Agriculture Committee has created an expensive new entitlement program that guarantees most of the income of farm businesses already enjoying record profits.” He calls replacing direct payments with a revenue guarantee program “a cynical game of bait-and-switch that should be rejected by Congress.”
On the conservation side, Cox is dismayed that the draft bill fails to address “the impact of fence-row to fence-row agricultural production, which is putting unprecedented pressure on our land, water and wildlife.” EWG would like to see the bill include language forcing farmers to protect critical wetlands and grasslands, not to mention soil health in general, in exchange for getting the insurance subsidies. “In combination, a new entitlement program, unlimited secret insurance subsidies, cuts to conservation programs and high commodity prices will create powerful incentives to plow up fragile wetlands and grasslands and erase many of the environmental gains made by agriculture in recent years,” says Cox.
On the plus side, Cox applauds provisions in the bill that create and expand programs supporting healthy diets and organic farmers, as well as those that seek to expand links between local farmers and consumers. “We also support efforts to reform conservation programs to get more conservation bang for the buck,” he concludes, adding that EWG hopes to work with legislators on strengthening the bill’s conservation and nutrition provisions, and to place sensible limits on subsidies for highly-profitable farms.
Another respected non-profit, American Farmland Trust (AFT), is more bullish overall on the Senate’s draft of the bill. The group likes the fact that funding for conservation programs is maintained at all, given the sour economic climate and resistance to put funds into non-emergency programs. AFT also praises the bill for its commitment to support farm and ranch land protection through a new permanent Agricultural Land Easement option which will help protect working lands and keep them in agricultural use.
“Our nation has a critical need to protect farm and ranch land,” says AFT president Jon Scholl, adding that the U.S. lost farm and ranch acreage equal to the size of Indiana over the last 30 years. “Permanent conservation easements protect agricultural land from development, safeguard local agricultural economies and help farmers and ranchers transition their land to the next generation.”
A vote on the final version of the bill could come as early as this summer.
CONTACTS: EWG, www.ewg.org, AFT, www.farmland.org.
In Spanish:
The non-profit Environmental Working Group (EWG) doesn’t think so.“Unfortunately, the bill ... will do more harm than good,” says Craig Cox, an agriculture and natural resources expert at EWG. “It needlessly sacrifices conservation and feeding assistance programs to finance unlimited insurance subsidies and a new entitlement program for highly profitable farm businesses.” Cox is critical of the new bill for essentially replacing one subsidy to large successful farms (those which need it least) with another: “Rather than simply ending the widely discredited direct payment program, the Senate Agriculture Committee has created an expensive new entitlement program that guarantees most of the income of farm businesses already enjoying record profits.” He calls replacing direct payments with a revenue guarantee program “a cynical game of bait-and-switch that should be rejected by Congress.”
On the conservation side, Cox is dismayed that the draft bill fails to address “the impact of fence-row to fence-row agricultural production, which is putting unprecedented pressure on our land, water and wildlife.” EWG would like to see the bill include language forcing farmers to protect critical wetlands and grasslands, not to mention soil health in general, in exchange for getting the insurance subsidies. “In combination, a new entitlement program, unlimited secret insurance subsidies, cuts to conservation programs and high commodity prices will create powerful incentives to plow up fragile wetlands and grasslands and erase many of the environmental gains made by agriculture in recent years,” says Cox.
On the plus side, Cox applauds provisions in the bill that create and expand programs supporting healthy diets and organic farmers, as well as those that seek to expand links between local farmers and consumers. “We also support efforts to reform conservation programs to get more conservation bang for the buck,” he concludes, adding that EWG hopes to work with legislators on strengthening the bill’s conservation and nutrition provisions, and to place sensible limits on subsidies for highly-profitable farms.
Another respected non-profit, American Farmland Trust (AFT), is more bullish overall on the Senate’s draft of the bill. The group likes the fact that funding for conservation programs is maintained at all, given the sour economic climate and resistance to put funds into non-emergency programs. AFT also praises the bill for its commitment to support farm and ranch land protection through a new permanent Agricultural Land Easement option which will help protect working lands and keep them in agricultural use.
“Our nation has a critical need to protect farm and ranch land,” says AFT president Jon Scholl, adding that the U.S. lost farm and ranch acreage equal to the size of Indiana over the last 30 years. “Permanent conservation easements protect agricultural land from development, safeguard local agricultural economies and help farmers and ranchers transition their land to the next generation.”
A vote on the final version of the bill could come as early as this summer.
CONTACTS: EWG, www.ewg.org, AFT, www.farmland.org.
In Spanish:
Querido DiálogoEcológico:
¿Qué opinan los grupos verdes acerca del nuevo proyecto de Ley
Agrícola de 2012 recientemente dado a conocer por el Senado?
- Roger Wheeler,
Miami, FL
Some green groups,
such as the Environmental Working Group, applaud parts of the 2012
Farm Bill that support healthy diets, organic farmers and links
between local growers and consumers. But they are critical of
provisions they say only continue subsidies for highly profitable
farms while ignoring needed protections for wetlands, grasslands and
soil health.
Como tanta legislación que viene
saliendo de Washington, D.C., los grupos verdes están divididos con
respecto al nuevo Proyecto de Ley Agrícola ahora avanzando hacia un
voto en el congreso. Hay sin duda algunos lugares que dan esperanza en
el proyecto, pero la cuestión es, ¿Son suficientes y van lo
suficientemente lejos?
La organización sin fines lucrativos
Environmental Working Group (EWG) cree que no.
"Desafortunadamente, el
proyecto... hará más daño que bien," dice Craig Cox, un experto en
agricultura y recursos naturales con el EWG. "Sacrifica
innecesariamente programas de conservación y ayuda alimentaria para
financiar subvenciones ilimitadas de seguros y nuevos derechos para
negocios agrícolas sumamente rentables". Cox es crítico del nuevo
proyecto porque reemplaza en esencia una subvención a granjas exitosas
grandes (las que tienen menos necesidad) con otra: "En vez de
sencillamente terminar el desacreditado programa de pagos directos, el
Comité de Agricultura del Senado ha creado un nuevo programa caro de
derechos que garantiza la mayor parte de los ingresos a negocios
agrícolas que ya disfrutan de ganancias sustanciales". El llama
reemplazar los pagos directos con un programa de garantía de ingresos
"un juego cínico fraudulento que debería ser rechazado por el
Congreso".
En materia de conservación, Cox
está consternado que el proyecto de ley no cubre "el impacto de
producción agrícola de valla a valla, que pone presión inaudita en
nuestra tierra, agua y fauna". EWG querría ver al proyecto ley incluir
lenguaje que forzara a los agricultores a proteger los humedales
frágiles y pastizales, aparte de la salud de los suelos en general, a
cambio de recibir las subvenciones de seguros. "En combinación, el
nuevo programa de derechos, subvenciones secretas ilimitadas de
seguros, reducciones a los programas de conservación y altos precios
de materias primas crarán incentivos fuertes para arar los delicados
humedales y pastizales y borrar así muchas de las victoria ecológicas
logradas por la agricultura en años recientes," indica Cox.
Por el lado positivo, Cox aplaude
provisiones en el proyecto que crean y expanden programas que apoyan
dietas sanas y la agricultura orgánica, así como los que procuran
expandir los lazos entre granjeros y consumidores locales. "También
apoyamos los esfuerzos de reformar los programas de conservación para
conseguir más beneficio de conservación por cada dólar," concluye,
agregando que EWG espera trabajar con legisladores para reforzar las
provisiones de conservación y nutrición del proyecto, y para colocar
límites sensatos a subvenciones para granjas sumamente gananciosas.
Otra respetada organización sin
fines lucrativos, American Farmland Trust (AFT), es más optimista, en
general, con respecto al proyecto frente al Senado. El grupo aprecia
el hecho que la financiación de programas de conservación se mantiene
en absoluto, dado el clima adverso económico que atravesamos y la
resistencia a aprobar fondos para programas no urgentes. AFT también
alaba el proyecto por su compromiso de apoyar las tierras de cultivo y
de ganadería a través de una nueva opción de Servidumbre de Tierra
Agrícola que ayudará a proteger las tierras cultivadas manteniéndolas
en uso agrícola.
"Nuestra nación tiene una
necesidad crítica de proteger tierras agrícolas y de ganadería," dice
el presidente de AFT Jon Scholl, agregando que EEUU perdió una
superficie equivalente al tamaño de Indiana en los últimos 30 años.
"Servidumbres permanentes de conservación protegen la tierra contra el
desarrollo, salvaguardan las economías agrícolas locales y ayudan a
granjeros y rancheros a hacer la transición de sus tierras a la
próxima generación".
Un voto sobre la versión final de
la cuenta podría tener lugar tan temprano como este verano.
CONTACTOS:
EWG,
www.ewg.org,
AFT,
www.farmland.org.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario