Washington DC, Th Dec 5th,
2012
At a conference organized by Farm Journal last Wednesday, Agriculture
Secretary Tom Vilsack said that rural districts are losing their ability to
exhort political pressure on their elected officials to maintain farm bill
programs. This, and the fiscal cliff debate, is drastically changing the
political climate of farm bill negotiations. After decades of fruitless
criticism to the way the U.S. government distributes food aid globally,
international development experts are finally seeing a real opportunity to
incorporate long overdue changes to American food aid programs.
The United States remains one of
the few countries that continue to ship food aid across the Atlantic instead of
providing cash to purchase it close to where the food is needed, a practice
common in Japan, the European Union and others donors. American food aid is
expensive and ineffective. The Government Accountability Office estimates that
approximately 60% of the program’s funds go to shipping. In addition, it can
take up to six month for the food to reach its destination –too long to
adequately address emergencies.
Following the example of other
countries, the Senate version of the farm bill introduced about $200 million to
‘local and regional food procurement’ or LRP. Instead of sending containers of
corn and soybeans, LRP programs provide cash to the World Food Program and NGOs
to purchase the food aid close to where is needed. Compare to our current
program, LRP will save over 50% in shipping, and strengthen local farmers in
the developing world by increasing the demand for their crops.
The Senate’s effort, however, is
currently threatened by a House version of the farm bill that rejects the LRP
program. Understanding the reluctance of the House to embrace LRP to save money
and make food aid more effective requires following the money and analyzing
population trends.
The farm bill covers a wide
range of issues supported by countless lobbying groups. While liberals tend to
favor food stamp and conservation programs, conservative groups exhort robust
political pressure for farm subsidies and crop insurance programs. Last
year alone, ‘crop production and basic processing industry’ contributed to the
House agricultural committee over $2.9 million, with 70% funneled
to Republican congressmen. These contributions come from larger farmers and
corporations that see no benefit in purchasing grains abroad.
Opposition to the LRP also comes
from rural Congressional districts where farming is still vital to their local
economies. In contrast to the Senate, many House policymakers represent these
constituencies which demand strong protection against climate variability and
subsidized price support for their commodities. For the most part, these
districts see little logic in using taxpayer monies to buy corn not in the
Mid-West but somewhere in Kenya.
“Why is it that we don't have a
farm bill?” Vilsack said. "It isn't just the differences of
policy. It's the fact that rural America with a
shrinking population is becoming less and less relevant to the
politics of this country.” According to the Department of Agriculture,
over half of rural counties are seeing negative population growth in the past
five years. As young people move to cities, farmers’ priorities are becoming
less significant to policymakers.
While the issue of reforming the
food aid has become a “Groundhog Day”
among development circles, it seems that the fundamental changes in the
political environment may allow the LRP to become law once for all. With the
growing fiscal pressures the momentum is on the side of those opposing farm
subsidies and supporting more efficient approaches to food aid.