A 2007 Farm Bill for Dighton and Djidian
The U.S. Farm Bill is
reauthorized approximately every 5 years. This omnibus legislation determines
the policies which govern food and nutrition, commodity, conservation, and
rural development programs. These policies affect all Americans, because we all
eat, and rely on our natural resources to provide clean water and air, healthy
food, and recreation. But some parts of the Farm Bill, such as commodity
programs, have specific impacts on rural Kansas, and rural West Africa.
U.S.
farmers that grow a narrow range of crops, predominantly cotton, corn, rice,
soybeans, and wheat, are eligible for commodity payments. These subsidies are
intended to create a safety net so that American farms can weather the ups and
downs of the market. When the price at the elevator is less than the cost of
production, our farmers receive money from the taxpayer to ensure that expenses
are covered and, sometimes, profits enhanced.
In
the case of some subsidies, checks are cut in relation to the actual bushels
produced and the amount of acres farmed – the more bushels and acres, the
higher the check. That means that even in a falling market, the only incentive
is to produce more and expand when possible. Expansion, of course, means less
farms, less people and less business for rural communities.
A
Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank study in March of 2005 summarized the overall
impact of crop subsidies on rural America as follows: "Farm payments are not
providing a strong boost to the rural economy in those counties that most
depend on them. Job gains are weak and population growth is actually negative
in most of the counties where farm payments are the biggest share of income."
That
is certainly the case for the majority of counties in central and western
Kansas. A February 2007 report published by the Center for Economic Development
and Business Research out of Wichita State University showed that Lane,
Greeley, and Ness counties had the largest population loss since the 2000
Census. Each lost over 12 percent of the population in five years, in addition
to their double digit losses in the 10 years prior.
And what does this have to do with
Africa? When U.S. producers are encouraged to overproduce these crops and sell
them at prices that are sometimes less than half the cost of production, farmers
in the world's poorest countries suffer.
Farmers in Mali or Chad do not
receive subsidies, growing their crops without machinery or irrigation. Most
struggle to survive on just a dollar a day. And they find themselves attempting
to compete with cheap crops subsidized by Uncle Sam.
The end result there is pretty much
as it is in the United States:
rural people are displaced, migrating to cities where jobs may or may
not exist. Poverty rates rise and hunger increases.
And instead of Africans having the
ability to stay working at livelihoods that help them feed themselves, invest
in water wells, schools, and clinics, they often have to become dependent upon
aid donated by other nations.
Reforming the 2007 farm bill can do
much to reduce these negative consequences while still supporting American
agriculture. A safety net is needed, but payments should be decoupled from
production.
Incentives for public benefits like
clean water and conservation should replace payments for more and more bushels.
Farmers and rural residents should be given entrepreneurial opportunities to
diversify crops and grow for new and emerging markets.
Kansas
farmers rely on a global market and our current subsidies jeopardize that
market because of their price-distorting effects. But more importantly, in
order for our economy to grow and prosper, we need growing economies all around
the world – whether in Dighton, Kansas, or Djidian, Mali.
---
Jim French farms and ranches in
Reno County and is lead organizer for Oxfam America's agriculture campaign.
Oxfam America is an international development agency working on long-term
solutions to poverty and hunger.
