Ag Weather Forum

Climate Change Echo In Farm Policy

Bryce Anderson
By  Bryce Anderson , Ag Meteorologist Emeritus
Connect with Bryce:

The featured item in the DTN Washington Insider posting from Monday September 15, 2014 is worth re-posting in this blog space. This item deals with a real rubber-hits-the-road issue when it comes to climate change, crop production and farm policy. At issue is whether producers being allowed to drop a bad year from their production histories should be allowed in crop insurance programs.--Bryce

Twitter @BAndersonDTN

Washington Insider: Doing Something About the Weather

Part of the support for the crop insurance safety nets now being offered depends on the idea that the premiums are science-based, with their cost based on coverage and actual histories. Now, however, the recent farm bill seems to have changed that to some degree.

Under normal crop insurance rules, producers' crop histories reflect both high and low yields, and the amount of coverage that can be purchased is smaller for those that tend to have poorer crops. However, the new farm Act has a provision that can give drought-damaged crops in any state a break by erasing the record of some bad yields.

Affected producers say they need this relief and will have trouble staying in business without it –– that they cannot get lenders to finance them for another year without expanded protection beyond what they could normally obtain.

P[L1] D[0x0] M[300x250] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

However, critics argue that the "exclusionary" provision masks weather developments, especially the effects of climate change and could discourage producers from taking steps to prepare for future droughts, such as diversifying crops.

"We're allowing the individuals to take higher risk than they normally would and that puts our nation at a higher risk," Tim Gieseke, president of Ag Resource Strategies LLC, a Minnesota-based business that manages environmental quality plans for businesses, government agencies and private organizations told the press.

Professor Bruce Babcock of Iowa State University was even tougher. He thinks the new farm Act is moving "closer and closer to being a social welfare program and this is one manifestation of that." he said. "It's really trying to protect farmers from the realities of climate change, protect them financially... But it sure doesn't protect taxpayers."

Farmers' actual, record-based crop yields provide a basis for both the level of coverage they can buy as well as the premiums they have to pay. Taxpayers subsidize about 62% of the premiums. A farmer's yields are averaged over 10 years to come up with actual production histories, or APH. The lower the APH, the less coverage a farmer can buy.

The farm Act provision will allow growers to eliminate bad yields from APH calculations anytime the overall yields in the counties where they farm are at least 50% below average.

The exclusionary provision also will apply to neighboring counties, which means that a broad swatch of the southern Plains will benefit, along with many other areas of the country. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the provision would cost taxpayers $357 million over 10 years.

Farmers also say they are frustrated because USDA has yet to implement the provision. Despite pressure from House Agriculture Chairman Frank Lucas, an Oklahoma Republican who got the provision in the bill, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack says USDA doesn't have the resources to get it implemented for another year because of the work entailed in developing other new programs established by the farm bill.

Southern Plains producers say they need help quickly. In 2011, there were more than 100 days in Texas and Oklahoma where the temperature exceeded 100 degrees and climate forecasts call for more frequent droughts across Texas and the Southern Plains in the future. The national climate assessment issued earlier this year warned that the droughts will deplete underground water supplies, forcing many farmers to stop irrigating crops and eventually reducing crop yields by a factor of two.

Because the risk of bad weather differs among regions, the value of crop insurance varies as well –– and, rules that allow poor yields to be excluded from APH calculations are expected to have differential consequences. As a result, Corn Belt economists are among those questioning the new rule most intensely, especially on the grounds that it raises questions of actuarial soundness of the system as a whole.

At a recent congressional hearing, a number of economists told the committee that questions regarding the integrity of the insurance program are not "inconsequential" considering how many producers rely on insurance. At the very least, they say, USDA must adjust the premiums paid by producers making this election to reflect the increased risks associated with the change.

One of the assertions often made by supporters of crop insurance programs is that, although many of the programs are heavily subsidized, at least those are transparent. However, the exclusionary rule threatens that assertion and likely will face serious future challenges including detailed studies of the rules' effects experts now say are underway. It will be important for producers to watch this process very carefully because it is fundamentally important to their main safety net program, Washington Insider believes.

(SK/CZ)

P[] D[728x170] M[320x75] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]
P[L2] D[728x90] M[320x50] OOP[F] ADUNIT[] T[]

Comments

To comment, please Log In or Join our Community .

Bonnie Dukowitz
9/23/2014 | 4:54 AM CDT
Personally, I support research, use and development of alternative energy. What irks me is the idiots with nothing else to do, wasting energy getting to and from marches, protests, environmental conventions, etc., pointing their fingers at someone else. I am curious as to how much carbon is emitted by totally wasting energy participating in such activities. Protests only result in unscientific, counterproductive legislation, rules and regulations. If only the protesters would set an example by staying home, working in their garden and getting the liberal press to report on their activity. those terrible conservatives would develop a different perspective.
Jay Mcginnis
9/22/2014 | 10:26 AM CDT
Rockefellers pledged today to divest $50 billion from fossil fuels to clean energy saying " there is a moral imperative to preserve a healthy planet". UN conference maps out fishing areas declining from climate change, 100's of thousands marched yesterday in climate protests around the world,,,,,, oh, its time for Rush Limbo radio, you guys have it turned up real loud????
Jay Mcginnis
9/22/2014 | 8:22 AM CDT
Ag programs are built from huge corporation lobbyists in order to maintain an abundant supply of cheap ag commodities so they can process them into huge profits. The farmer gets minimal payment but enough to stay in business while the tax payer foots the bill. Climate change adds an uncertainty into the equation that corporations don't like, interesting to see how they will deal with it, I am sure they will figure out some way to maintain or increase their profits.
Curt Zingula
9/22/2014 | 7:08 AM CDT
Babcock is chronically an embarassment to most of us who went to ISU! He's an EWG puppet to boot! And Bonnie you are SO right about the "big picture". Plus farm support comes at the expense of those who can afford it and not as a grocery expense by those who can't.
Bonnie Dukowitz
9/22/2014 | 5:36 AM CDT
Would someone please convey to Professor Babcock the Ag. Act always was a social welfare program. The intent was and is to guarantee an adequate and affordable food supply for the American public. The implementation is accomplished through keeping food producers afloat through the poor crop years. On the surface it appears as welfare for farmers while in reality it is welfare for the general public. Look at the big picture, not just the highlighted portion of the altered photo.
bbob
9/21/2014 | 4:44 PM CDT
? That is stupid.
JEFF RIDDER
9/20/2014 | 9:02 PM CDT
Global warming/ climate change is a scam, a lie. It's time to open your eyes for crying out loud.