Rural renewal demands a broader Farm Bill
WhatÕs at stake for rural
America in the 2007 farm bill? A way of life endangered by depopulation, brain
drain and urban domination.
Here are four principles that I
believe Congress should consider in reauthorizing federal farm programs.
1. When the farmer does well,
it helps the rural economy. This doesnÕt mean that the farm bill can or should
guarantee prosperity for every farmer, but the policy should help create a
situation where farmers have the opportunity to succeed in the marketplace.
When farmers make a profit, it is good for rural America.
2. Farm is not the same as
rural. Many rural residents are not full-time commercial farmers. Through the
years, rural America has seen depopulation due to fewer and larger farms, but
in certain areas it has seen repopulation from people who want to live in the
country but near to a job center or amenities. For these rural residents, issues
of telecommunications technology, health care, good roads, recreation, and
quality of life are especially important.
3. Research is the best
long-term investment. In the long run, the most important component of the farm
bill may be those provisions supporting agricultural research, extension, and
teaching. Such research can generate the advances which provide American
producers with a technological edge in the world marketplace. Land-grant
university research can help understand community dynamics, develop new and
better varieties of crops, fight pests or disease, develop renewable energy
sources, conserve water or pesticides, or add value to livestock. More
investment is needed in promising cutting-edge technologies for bioproducts and
biofuels, such as biodegradable products made from corn, cellulosic energy from
biomass, or ÒfarmaceuticalÓ crop-based medicines.
The National Association of
State Universities and Land Grant Colleges advocates a three-part strategy: 1.
Doubling funding levels through more competitive grants while stabilizing the
base funding, 2. Reaffirming the tripartite mission of research, extension, and
teaching, and 3. Better integration of the ag research administrative
structure. Instead of the current splintered responsibility among agencies, the
association proposes creating the National Institutes for Food and Agriculture
as an independent entity reporting to the secretary of agriculture. Such an
innovative approach would create more cohesion in the administration of important
agricultural research, including community development.
4. Modern rural America demands
new approaches. The Òrural developmentÓ titles of the farm bill usually deal
with reauthorization of USDA authorities in business lending, housing, water,
waste, and facilities financing programs. These are important, but the
legislation should not stop there.
Federal initiatives should
support emerging rural needs such as high-speed Internet access, tourism,
entrepreneurship, community leadership, and community foundations. Excellent
examples include the Rural Broadband Improvement Act authored by Senator Pat
Roberts and others, and the Open Fields legislation, which provides incentives
for farmers and ranchers to voluntarily open their land to hunting, fishing and
other wildlife-related activities.
Perhaps the farm bill should
support a rural futuring initiative, under which rural citizens can think
strategically and regionally about their future. This could help communities
position themselves and their community institutions to manage the current
changes and transitions more successfully. Perhaps communities should focus on
wealth creation and retention. Perhaps, instead of spending more money in rural
development, we should better coordinate the programs we already have, through
joint federal and state rural development councils.
The farm bill debate in
Washington should not distract rural communities from the fact that their
future is much more dependent on grass-roots initiative than federal largesse.
The farm bill can and should provide tools for them to use, but communities
dare not wait for a farm bill to save them. Instead, community citizens must
think strategically and work locally for their own futures.
Times have changed since I was
a junior staff member for a congressional Agriculture Committee working on the
1981 farm bill. For the modern needs of rural America, the new farm bill needs
an extreme makeover.
---
Ron Wilson is director of the Huck Boyd National Institute
for Rural Development at Kansas State University.
