Tom, MF -- rechristened "motherfunctionality" by one ag economist I know -- has been hashed and rehashed on this side of the Atlantic for years, and is now much less invoked than it was a decade ago.

The idea that any economic activity generates multiple external benefits (but let's not forget about costs) is nothing new. What was clever -- for awhile -- was to come up with a new "feel-good" term that provided Europeans who were afraid of farm-policy reforms a new justification for continued agricultural support. But unifying slogans rarely provide a sound basis for policy.

First, MF is hardly unique to farming. Look at almost any profession and you will find that they perform services that are often not recompensed -- taxi drivers who dispense helpful advice to tourists, fishers who rescue stranded boaters, land owners of all types who plant flowers. Encouraging civic behaviour is generally better done through social norms than through subsidies. (For more on that, I recommend highly Swiss professor Bruno Frey's book, Not Just for the Money [PDF file].)

At the end of the day, we cannot avoid the need to justify supporting each public good on its own merits, and without prejudice. If there is public value in leaving land in its natural state for the sake of wildlife, or in maintaining the rural landscape, ALL land-owners should be able to compete for that service. Simply paying farmers, and only farmers, is inefficient and arbitrary.

I am also skeptical about the need to pay farmers to diversify their crops. Let's first see what happens when we stop subsidizing farmers to produce a narrow range of monoculture commodities, like the "program crops" (now called "contract commodities": wheat, feed grains, oilseeds, cotton, rice, sugar cane and sugar beets) currently favoured by support policies. In many countries where commodity-linked programs have been withdrawn, more-diversified horticulture has thrived.

Finally, the idea of subsidizing any producer -- farmer, chemical plant or coal mine operator -- to clean up their act (in the case of farmers, to reduce fertilizer use or pesticides) should be approached with extreme caution. Besides violating the "polluter pays principle", it can ultimately be self-defeating, unless the money is mainly used for research, extension and demonstration projects.

These are only my personal opinions.

All of the benefits of the multifunctional approach could be captured using soil carbon rents, essentially payments for ecosystem services involving atmospheric stabilization, water enhancement and conservation, wildlife, etc. etc. Soil organic matter characterizes all of these benefits.

http://soilcarboncoalition.org/future_of_farm_bill

soilcarboncoalition.org

Simple as that. Why should the U.S. taxpayer pay to support particular businesses, love farmers as much as we might? We also like teachers, doctors, and newspaper boys, but we don't make direct payments to encourage them to keep teaching, doctoring, or delivering papers.

We can learn a lesson from the failed centrally-planned economies of the former Soviet Union: when government decides to encourage one industry and discourage another, the end will eventually come. Governments just aren't as smart as millions of motivated individuals.

Check out how the U.S.D.A spends it's money and other interesting government data at: http://www.supportingevidence.com/Government/Government_l ...

http://www.SupportingEvidence.com
'worth a thousand words'