Comments Thomas Dobbs has made

yes, indeed, the language is vague

The language in this new Farm Bill provision is, indeed, quite vague. That's one reason I did this post, to alert the environmental community to watch for opportunities for dialogue and input.

Thomas L. Dobbs Professor Emeritus of Economics, South Dakota State University, and W.K. Kellogg Foundation Food & Society Policy Fellow

Response to comment on the IAASTD study

I was not part of the IAASTD study, but I do not read the Synthesis report and process as the 'North' telling the 'South' what to do. I read it as being more empowering, as admitting that the agricultural path taken in recent decades by both North and South was (in hindsight) not necessarily the best one. 'Multifunctionality' does not dictate what weights different countries or societies should place on each funtion. What it does is explicitly recognize that a range of agricultural functions--not just production of commodity crops--have a legitimate place in the policy process. A multifunctionality vision also tends to imply that environmental and social functions may be more compatible with long-term food production goals than has commonly been assumed in the past.

Thomas L. Dobbs Professor Emeritus of Economics, South Dakota State University, and W.K. Kellogg Foundation Food & Society Policy Fellow

More on conservation compliance regulations

Of course, if there is no enforcement, it won't make any difference what the cross-compliance regulations are. "Justlou" suggests that maybe "small government" is a better way to go, rather than add more reg's. But we don't have "small government" when we have the Federal government poring out billions of dollars every year under the farm commodity programs. As long as that kind of "big government" continues, it is imperative that the public insist on reasonable conservation in return. The 1985 Federal farm bill was the breakthrough policy legislation in that regard. As the EWG report points out, there are a lot of problems with meaningful enforcement of the conservation compliance reg's at this time. But the solution is not to abandon the cross-compliance reg's, but to strengthen them and put in place an Executive branch that really wants to enforce them. With the current President, there is probably not much hope of meaningful enforcement of environmental reg's in agriculture or any other sector.

A cross-compliance regulation prohibiting continuous corn would actually be fairly easy to enforce, if there is government will. Every farm receiving commodity subsidies should be required to file a rotation plan. Obviously, weather and market conditions necessitate some flexibility when it comes planting time. But unlimited flexibility should not be allowed: back-to-back planting of corn on the same field should not be allowed. Farmers would be required to report what is planted on each field, and spot checks could be done to monitor for violations of this corn-following-corn prohibition.

I don't like to be put in the position of defending the Midwest's corn/soybean rotation. As I said in my post, this is not much of a rotation (from an ecological perspective), but it does beat continuous corn. I don't believe I' ve ever met an agronomist who would advocate continuous corn over a corn/soybean rotation--from an ecological perspective--except possibly some agronomists with vested interests, such as ones working for GM seed and chemcal input industries. Yes, continuous corn does excist as a production practice, propped up by GM seeds and other technologies. But ecology and history tell us that agriculture based on monoculture usually is not sustainable. Insect and weed resistances build up, requiring ever more exotic chemicals, genetic engineering, etc. It's a great game for those industries and researchers who make their living by trying to keep ahead of nature. But, ultimately, it is a game that can not be won. In the long run, nature wins out and demands biodiversity.

I think we need a national conversation about what kinds of rotations, generally, should be allowed for farmers receiving commodity subsidies. Corn-following-corn should just be the start of that conversation. Probably soybeans-following-soybeans should not be allowed, either.

Let the conversation begin. What about other crop systems across the country?

Tom

Thomas L. Dobbs Professor Emeritus of Economics, South Dakota State University, and W.K. Kellogg Foundation Food & Society Policy Fellow

Biofuels, at what cost?

Thanks for calling the original source of The Economist's data in this regard to my attention and to Gristmill's readers. Yes, having spent a good deal of time in Europe the last several years, I am familiar with the CAP cross-compliance regulations, but thanks for making that connection.

Tom

Thomas L. Dobbs Professor Emeritus of Economics, South Dakota State University, and W.K. Kellogg Foundation Food & Society Policy Fellow

Farm program commodity subsidies

Tom,

The structural challenges of transitioning out of our current narrow and industrialized farming systems are, indeed, formidable. I wrote two SDSU Economics Commentator articles earlier this year that outline my own policy recommendations for facilitating this transition process (see "Competing Vistion of US Agriculture" and "Time for Change in US Farm Policy", listed in my section of the Food & Society Policy Fellows website). There is no question that it would be best to gradually shift (say, over a 10-year period) most or all of the 'commodity title' funds to agri-environmental, rural development, and healthy food programs. But we have seen repeatedly that the the Congressional 'farm block' refuses to do this. So, the political question is: "Do we just continue with business as usual, one farm bill after another? Or will it eventually take citizen shock and revolt at the environmental and human health consequences of the status quo to finally just flat-out terminate the commodity subsidies?" If and when the latter happens, unfortunately, the shifting of funds to worthy food and agricultural policy purposes may not happen. Your concern is well-founded. But I and many others are running out of patience with the absolute refusal of the farm block to accomodate a transition to a set of policies that really serve the national interest.

Thomas Dobbs

Thomas L. Dobbs Professor Emeritus of Economics, South Dakota State University, and W.K. Kellogg Foundation Food & Society Policy Fellow