The State Journal-Register / By CHARLYN FARGO, AGRIBUSINESS EDITOR
Talk is well under way about what should be in the 2002 Farm Bill.
Much of the talk centers on programs to promote conservation of soil and farmland, and activists in the farm community are starting to talk about whether soil conservation isn't just as important to consumers as it is to farmers.
As a result, farm program payments may be restructured to highlight the fact that consumers, through their tax dollars, are being asked to help pay for saving the nation's soil.
Mike Williams, chief of staff with the Illinois Department of Agriculture, recently attended a meeting of directors of state agriculture departments throughout the nation.
They came up with a new "green payment" program that they hope will be part of the 2002 Farm Bill. It emphasizes conservation efforts as a public benefit, recognizing activities that enhance wildlife, plant new trees and establish buffer strips.
Farmers will be asked to do those things on a voluntary basis, and if they do, they'll be paid for the soil they conserve.
Farmers would sign up for an annual payment, similar to the current Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program. But unlike some other conservation initiatives now in place, Williams hopes the money will be allotted in block grants to states, rather than through the Natural Resources Conservation Service, to allow states to design individual programs.
"It's a new avenue for funding, to see this as a public benefit rather than just a benefit to farmers," said Williams.
He expects the current payment system, called AMPTA, to be replaced with a conservation-type program.
"I just don't think AMPTA payments will stay in place," said Williams.
So will farmers be looking at smaller government payments?
Not necessarily, says Williams, "I think they're trying to keep farm payments about the same, but I think they'll be set up differently," he said.
The idea raises some interesting issues. Will the NRCS be willing to give up administration of the funds? Will the public buy into the idea that they're getting as much benefit from soil conservation as the farmers who own the land? And will farmers be able to depend on the government to make up income differences caused by sluggish markets?
Net farm income is forecast at $41.3 billion in 2001. That's $4.1 billion less than in 2000 - not welcome news for many farmers. However, the reductions hinge on the assumption that government payments will be approximately $8 billion less in 2001 than in the previous year. Government payments were a record $22.1 billion in 2000.
By historical standards, the last five years have been an unusually favorable period for production. Not only has there been little adverse weather, but rainfall has been generally abundant and timely. That's been good and bad news for farmers because rising world supplies of ag commodities in the face of weak international demand have reduced U.S. farm exports and lowered crop prices.
Prior to 1996, droughts or floods in one or more major crop-producing regions resulted in lower crop inventories and relieved downward pressure on farm prices.
As farmers face this planting season, many are concerned about whether the government will continue to feel it's important to help farmers through government payments, whatever form they take.
It's likely this farm bill will plow some new ground in the areas of conservation and public benefits, and farmers may be forced to do some things.
Charlyn Fargo is agribusiness editor of The State Journal-Register. She can be reached at 788-1521 or by fax at 788-1551 or charlyn.fargo@sj-r.com.:
