Farm Bureau reverses policy on conservation compliance
October 09, 2013 | 06:43 PM
The American Farm Bureau Federation board last week reversed its policy position that crop insurance should be linked to conservation compliance, and House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas, R-Okla., praised that decision today.
Earlier this year Farm Bureau, a generally conservative, Republican-leaning association, organized a large coalition of farm and conservation groups in favor of an agreement to tie crop insurance benefits to conservation compliance. The proposal was considered a breakthrough in the conflict between conservation and farm groups and was included in the Senate farm bill, but not in the House bill.
Farm Bureau did not issue a news release about the board’s reversal, but it was announced today by Lucas, who had opposed requiring farmers to comply with federal conservation standards to get crop insurance benefits.
Lucas issued the following statement:
“Conservation compliance measures tied to crop insurance would be a misguided and redundant regulatory burden imposed on farmers and their property rights. I am philosophically opposed to this linkage and applaud AFBF’s decision to support this position.
“Conservation compliance is already the law of the land,” Lucas said. “All farmers who receive assistance through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s commodity, conservation, and credit programs are required to protect our nation's wetlands and environmentally-sensitive croplands. I am a firm believer in these conservation compliance standards, as well as voluntary, incentive-based conservation practices. And, I share the concerns of AFBF regarding the inconsistency with which conservation compliance provisions could be implemented on a state-by-state and county-by-county basis.
“Crop insurance is not a traditional benefit to producers. A grower must purchase a crop insurance policy and must suffer a verifiable loss. Sometimes this means a grower must suffer a 50 percent loss before collecting a payment. Tying conservation compliance to crop insurance would create another layer of bureaucratic, red-tape potentially endangering a farmer's livelihood. This is during a time when USDA is already overwhelmed with determining wetland designations for producers who are subject to compliance.
“Farmers and ranchers are the best possible stewards of their land. They are already successfully using conservation practices to protect our natural resources.”
Earlier this year Farm Bureau, a generally conservative, Republican-leaning association, organized a large coalition of farm and conservation groups in favor of an agreement to tie crop insurance benefits to conservation compliance. The proposal was considered a breakthrough in the conflict between conservation and farm groups and was included in the Senate farm bill, but not in the House bill.
Farm Bureau did not issue a news release about the board’s reversal, but it was announced today by Lucas, who had opposed requiring farmers to comply with federal conservation standards to get crop insurance benefits.
Lucas issued the following statement:
“Conservation compliance measures tied to crop insurance would be a misguided and redundant regulatory burden imposed on farmers and their property rights. I am philosophically opposed to this linkage and applaud AFBF’s decision to support this position.
“Conservation compliance is already the law of the land,” Lucas said. “All farmers who receive assistance through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s commodity, conservation, and credit programs are required to protect our nation's wetlands and environmentally-sensitive croplands. I am a firm believer in these conservation compliance standards, as well as voluntary, incentive-based conservation practices. And, I share the concerns of AFBF regarding the inconsistency with which conservation compliance provisions could be implemented on a state-by-state and county-by-county basis.
“Crop insurance is not a traditional benefit to producers. A grower must purchase a crop insurance policy and must suffer a verifiable loss. Sometimes this means a grower must suffer a 50 percent loss before collecting a payment. Tying conservation compliance to crop insurance would create another layer of bureaucratic, red-tape potentially endangering a farmer's livelihood. This is during a time when USDA is already overwhelmed with determining wetland designations for producers who are subject to compliance.
“Farmers and ranchers are the best possible stewards of their land. They are already successfully using conservation practices to protect our natural resources.”
