|
|
 
|
Losing the farm; other news
(Friday, April 29, 2005 -- CropChoice news) -- 1. What's for Dinner? Imports. 1. What's for Dinner? Imports. By JANET ADAMY, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL January 31, 2005 American agriculture is suddenly going through a lot of changes. After decades as the world's biggest farm exporter, the U.S. farm sector
is facing new challenges. Overseas farming giants are emerging to eat
into America's business of supplying the world with crops such as wheat
and soybeans. See the complete Trend report at http://online.wsj.com/page/0,,2_1129,00.html And at home, American consumers are demanding that farmers change the
way they grow and sell their produce and livestock. Consumers want
pesticide-free produce, giving rise to new ways of cultivating and
processing food. They also are seeking new eating experiences. Their
appetite for Chilean sea bass, vanilla-flavored lattes made with Italian
syrups, and grapes in winter is erasing the U.S. farm sector's unique
ability to generate a trade surplus. U.S. farmers are seeking new streams of income from their land, such as
developing wind power, and, most important, many are learning how to be
marketers for the first time. Here are some major trends down on the farm. 1. The Shifting Global Balance Thanks to cheap land and labor, Russia, Brazil, Argentina, China and
other countries are emerging as powerful agricultural producers. The
burgeoning titans are building new roads and bridges that benefit their
farming infrastructure, and overseas farmers now have access to U.S.
equipment and sophisticated biotechnology that deters weeds and bugs.
Russia, for instance, used to depend heavily on the U.S. for wheat, but
is becoming a rival wheat exporter. It's expected to ship almost 6% of
the world's total wheat exports this year, according to the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. The USDA predicts that there will be no trade surplus in agriculture by
the end of 2005. Just four years ago, the U.S. farm sector was
generating an annual surplus of $13.7 billion. But U.S. farmers are working to stay competitive. "What we're seeing
among our best producers is embracing technology to reduce their costs
of production to become more efficient," says Keith Collins, chief
economist at the USDA. U.S. farmers continue to have an edge in things
like irrigation and risk-management tools such as futures contracts and
federally subsidized crop insurance. 2. Tasty Imports U.S. consumers have increased their appetite for foreign food, and
retailers are capitalizing on the trend. Imported food was once hard to
find, but now retail chains like Cost Plus Inc. of Oakland, Calif., are
popping up in suburban strip malls, selling treats like Swedish
gingersnaps and Australian wine. The rise of new farm powers also is
shifting the balance. Trade pacts, including the North American Free Trade Agreement, make it
easier for the U.S. to bring in food from other countries. Meantime,
European countries have blocked U.S. exports of some genetically
modified foods, and several other countries banned U.S. beef after the
first U.S.
case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad-cow disease, was
discovered in December 2003. Other countries also can produce raw ingredients at a lower cost,
prompting food companies to go overseas for supplies. 3. A Modified Success After sweeping across the American Farm Belt, genetically modified crops
are making inroads overseas -- despite resistance in some nations where
critics contend they could pose unknown risks to the food supply.
Modified
crops can tolerate weed-killing chemicals and resist damaging pests,
saving farmers money in labor and lost crops. Eighteen countries now grow biotech crops, with Argentina, China, Canada
and Brazil leading biotech growth outside the U.S. An additional 45 are
researching and developing their use, according to a study by C. Ford
Runge, director of the University of Minnesota's Center for
International Food and Agricultural Policy. Monsanto Co., of St. Louis, is pushing into India with biotech corn and
cotton, and into Brazil with biotech corn, cotton and soybeans. And, while Europe imposed a de facto moratorium on the production and
import of gene-spliced foods, it's starting to ease some restrictions. 4. Organic Growth As demand for organic food grows, so does the number of organic farmers.
Sales of organic food are growing about 18% a year, with meat and fish
experiencing the fastest growth, according to figures from the Organic
Trade Association. The amount of U.S. certified organic cropland for
corn, soybeans, and other major crops doubled from 1997 to 2001,
according to the USDA. Instead of just growing organic strawberries and apples, farmers are
expanding into agricultural staples like organic corn, wheat and
soybeans as food marketers offer more organic products. For farmers, the lure of going organic is a chemical-free work
environment and higher organic-crop prices. Organic produce sells at
about a 30% premium to traditional produce. However, much of that
premium gets eaten up by the higher cost of growing chemical-free crops.
Converting pesticide-tainted land into organic soil can cost as much as
$10,000 per acre. Although the number of organic farmers continues to climb, there are
signs the growth may be leveling off. The number of organic farms rose
by about 12% each year from 2000 to 2003 in California, the state with
the most organic farmers. But last year, it grew only 6% to 7%, for a
total of about 3,000 organic farms in the Golden State. 5. Longer Life Commodity processors are increasingly using sophisticated equipment to
improve the shelf life and taste of foods. Chiquita Brands International Inc., of Cincinnati, last fall invested
$3.5
million in a company that makes packaging designed to keep bananas
fresher.
Landec Corp., based in Menlo Park, Calif., has developed a membrane that
regulates the flow of gases through the packaging. When shipped and
stored in the packaging, the shelf life of a banana about doubles,
making its quality more consistent. 6. The Safety Challenge The industrialization and globalization of farming is making food safety
more challenging. Food travels farther, spends more time in transit and
is touched by more hands, increasing the opportunity for problems as
well as the potential scope of any outbreak. With the U.S. getting more food from overseas, detecting an outbreak and
finding its source becomes more complicated and costly. The USDA
estimates that five common food-borne illnesses cost the economy $6.9
billion annually in medical expenses, lost productivity and deaths. Food-safety advocates also worry that new farming practices are having
unintended consequences. Livestock are increasingly raised in
confinement, a technique that allows producers to control their
environment and diet in order to speed growth. But raising a large
number of animals this way can make it easier for diseases to spread.
Many producers resort to antibiotics so often that medical experts are
growing concerned. The problem is that the practice can increase the
opportunity for bacteria to develop resistance to antibiotics used in
human medicine. New technology is helping processors screen for bacteria. Minneapolis
commodity-processing giant Cargill Inc. is installing a system of blue
lights in its meat plants that can detect traces of chlorophyll on beef
carcasses -- a sign that stray animal guts may have spread E. coli onto
the beef. Previously, this job was largely handled by inspectors relying
on keen eyes to spot problems with the meat. 7. Keepings Tabs on Trees In a key food-safety advancement, the government and technology
companies are laying the groundwork for a nationwide livestock-tracking
system that would help prevent the spread of diseased meat. By tracking animals from birth to the supermarket, regulators would be
better able to find those that are potentially exposed to diseases and
keep them out of the food supply. The USDA has said it will put $51.8 million toward an identification
system. Many technology companies are vying to supply the gear, and some
farmers are already adapting it. Digital Angel Corp., of South St.
Paul,
Minn., makes a livestock ear tag that contains a data-rich microchip.
The
company sold more than one million units last year, five times as many
as in 2003. Some farmers fear such a system would bring to their doorstep liability
for a food-safety problem. Cattlemen "tend to be very independent, and
they are always concerned about Big Brother inserting itself into their
business,"
says Kevin McGrath, president and chief executive of Digital Angel. 8. The Answer in the Wind Seeking new streams of revenue, farmers are leasing land to energy
companies that erect towering turbines with wind-spun blades to produce
energy. Such projects are a small but important source of income for farmers,
particularly in poor rural counties. One turbine can generate as much as
$5,000 in lease payments a year, according to a report by the U.S.
Government Accountability Office. The Department of Energy is aiming to make wind power the source of 5%
of the nation's electricity by 2020, up from less than 1% in 2004. The
department estimates the shift will provide $1.2 billion in new income
for farmers and rural landowners and create 80,000 new jobs. One challenge will be to match wind supply with demand. States that are
best suited to produce wind power, including North Dakota and South
Dakota, have seen little investment because they lack big cities to use
the power and the transmission capacity to deliver it to small, remote
towns, according to the GAO. State tax incentives have speeded projects
in California, Texas and Minnesota, and federal funding that stretches
through
2007 likely will spur more investment. 9. Aging Farmers Young people continue to eschew farming, changing the demographics of
the typical American farm household. The average age of principal
farmers has risen steadily since 1978; in 2002 it was 55, up five years
from 1978.
Experts say that thin profits in most years and steep upfront costs are
keeping many young people from starting their own farms or even taking
over the family farm. A poll conducted by Iowa State University last
March found that 57% of Iowa farmers would not encourage young people to
become farmers. The state is working to change that. An Iowa State University program
pairs aspiring farmers with ones who want to retire yet don't have heirs
to take over their farms. Prospective farmers work as apprentices and
get advice on securing loans to help them buy land. Since 1992, the
program has matched about 90 farmers. 10. Fewer Farms The continuing decline in the number of U.S. farms is reshaping the Farm
Belt. The number of American farms peaked in 1935 at 6.8 million. As of
2003, there were 2.1 million farms nationwide, largely because of
widespread farm consolidation. Improvements in farming equipment have
reduced the amount of labor needed on farms and made it easier for
farmers to handle large plots of land. The declining farm numbers have been chipping away at the population of
rural areas. That has broad implications for small-town America.
Once-thriving downtowns are struggling in part because they have fewer
farmers to patronize their stores. The trend also is reshaping the political landscape for the agricultural
industry. While the Farm Belt still has substantial clout in Washington,
state farm legislation is increasingly being drafted by people who lack
ties to agriculture, says Paul Lasley, chairman of the sociology
department at Iowa State University. Ms. Adamy is a staff reporter in The Wall Street Journal's Chicago
bureau.
2. Another Lobby Group Wanting Cheaper Food at Farmers' Expense by Paul Beingessner My father used to sardonically remark at the end of a hard day of farm
work, "Another day, another dollar." Were he alive today, Dad would
likely say, "Another day, another lobby group." He would be referring to the grandiosely named "Global Alliance for
Liberalized Trade in Food and Agriculture", which joined the cacophony
of voices from the WTO talks this past week. The various press pieces
put out by this new group make for some interesting, if confusing
reading. Claiming to represent 39 organizations from 15 countries, the
Food Trade Alliance (it has already shortened its name) has some unusual
origins. If you believe the Canadian Agri-Food Trade Alliance, it "spearheaded"
the creation of the similarly-named international organization. And
though the Food Trade Alliance website does not name its members, we
know that four of the 39 are very small farm lobby groups from western
Canada. These are the Western Canadian Wheat Growers, the Western Barley
Growers Association, the Alberta Barley Commission and the Alberta Grain
Commission. While I would never doubt CAFTA, the Wall Street Journal reports that
the Food Trade Alliance is the creation of fast food giant Yum Brands
Inc. This Louisville, Kentucky company owns Taco Bell, KFC and Pizza Hut
restaurants. Yum is trying to convince Wendy's and McDonalds to join the
Alliance. They are all already de facto members through the National
Restaurant Association in the U.S. The Food Trade Alliance seems
dominated by restaurant, food processing and consumer organizations from
rich countries. The Food Trade Alliance makes the usual call for reductions in domestic
and export subsidies. It identifies its targets as "trade distorting"
subsidies. (Presumably this is so as to not scare off American farm
groups since they seem to believe their own subsidies are not trade
distorting.) The Alliance reserves most of its venom for tariffs. It calls for
"enhanced market access for all products, including 'sensitive'
products, through deep and harmonizing tariff cuts". In translation,
this means ending tariffs that protect such things as Canada's supply
management system for dairy and poultry products. The Alliance gives a great rationale for its wish to see tariff cuts.
Tariffs, it says, do not allow food processors to search the world for
the cheapest raw materials. The Alliance website uses an American
perspective to decry the "high cost" of food, putting itself forward as
the defender of "single mothers" who are hardest hit by today's high
food prices. If tariffs did not protect American farmers, then food
processors and restaurants could get cheaper foodstuffs from foreign
countries where producers are "more efficient". The Alliance gives cheese in Canada as an example. Because of supply
management, food processors that use cheese must pay high tariffs if
they want to import it, instead of getting it from Canadian dairy farmers. It is easy to see why American restaurant giants like Yum and McDonalds
would want to reduce tariff barriers. With global networks of
restaurants, these companies would be free to play suppliers around the
world off against each other to get lower prices. It is harder to see
how Canadian farm groups would think that the race to lower prices would
be a big help to Canadian farmers. One Alliance member, U.S. based Consumers for World Trade figures the
U.S. can have it all. While admitting that some U.S. farmers would be
harmed when food processors discard them to pursue cheaper foods
overseas, the group says "if all WTO member nations were required to
eliminate or reduce barriers to food imports, American farmers would
gain access to huge markets in Europe, Japan and elsewhere while
American consumers would enjoy lower prices and more food choices". This seems to mean that American farmers would lose domestic markets but
somehow manage to steal markets in Japan and Europe. This would
mysteriously make them better off. American consumers would get cheaper
food from other countries while giving the raspberry to their own
farmers. According to the Alliance, those poor single moms in the U.S.
would not only get cheaper food, but would also get "better paying jobs"
in food producing and exporting industries. According to Alliance propaganda, American consumers pay prices for some
food products that are much higher than "world market prices". Cheese is
40 percent higher, butter is 60 percent higher. The Alliance would break
the domination of those filthy-rich dairy farmers by importing cheaper
dairy products from agricultural powerhouses like India. A short column doesn't give much scope to expose all the contradictions
in the Food Trade Alliance's positions. It is obvious the Alliance is
there to further the cause of giant food processors as they further beat
down the price of raw materials. Apparently some Canadian farm groups
think this is a good thing. Apparently some Canadian politicians agree.
Ted Menzies, Conservative MP from Alberta, is one of them. As a one-time
farmer, he should think a bit before becoming a shill for transnational
food processors. As a former Wheat Grower, he seems comfortable with
that role. It's the same old story. Multi-national food companies want to roam the
globe freely, playing farmers off against each other. They try to use
consumer groups against farmers, and pit rich countries against poor
ones. They manage to drag along a few silly farm groups and a bunch of
self-interested consumer groups. They have bags of money to buy any and
everyone they want, including the press, and they enlist a bunch of
front groups that they secretly fund. And they think farmers will be
stupid enough to buy it. (Hey, have I got a greasy pizza to sell you!) The whole business gets sadder and sadder. And more deadly... (c) Paul Beingessner (306) 868-4734 phone 868-2009 fax
beingessner@sasktel.net
3. Multinational fast food corporations in alliance seek to cut subsidies, tariffs Scott Kilman and Steven Gray, Wall Street Journal, via The Agribusiness Examiner U.S. fast-food giants, in a move reflecting the crucial role of agricultural subsidies at the World Trade Organization, are for the first time injecting themselves into trade talks in a big way. A coalition hatched largely by Yum Brands Inc., the Louisville, Kentucky., operator of Taco Bell, KFC and Pizza Hut restaurants, is trying to recruit Yum's rivals and food processors to lobby for free food trade, as the WTO's Doha Round of trade negotiations heads for a climactic meeting in December in Hong Kong. Fast-food retailers are usually leery of taking sides on controversial issues for fear of upsetting customers. The Doha talks, which were launched in the Qatari capital in late 2001, have been marked by acrimony both inside the meetings and outside on the streets. Negotiations in Cancun, Mexico, over a 147-nation multi-industry trade treaty broke down in September 2003, amid disputes between poor nations and developed countries over agricultural subsidies. Starbucks Corp., which witnessed first hand the havoc of street protests during a 1999 meeting in Seattle of trade ministers, said it isn't participating in the Yum coalition, known as the Food Trade Alliance. Closely held Burger King Corp., which is focused on turning around its operations, also isn't participating. But Wendy's International Inc., the No. 3 U.S. hamburger chain, said it might join. McDonald's Corp., the world's biggest restaurant chain by sales, said it "currently" isn't a member of the lobbying group. The National Restaurant Association, a
Washington trade group that counts as members Yum, McDonald's, Wendy's and Burger King, said it is a member of the Food Trade Alliance. The alliance's Web site and printed materials don't identify sponsoring companies, and company officials had little to say about it publicly. Bill Ehrig, who heads government relations for Yum, confirmed in an e-mail that Yum has "taken a leadership role" with the Food Trade Alliance. "We support efforts to lower barriers to trade in processed foods and commodities, ultimately lowering the prices of our ingredients world-wide," wrote Mr. Ehrig, who didn't return phone calls seeking additional comment. Yum has 33,600 restaurants and 840,000 employees in 100 countries. Despite its backers' desire to stay in the background, the Yum-backed group's strategy is to generate publicity about what it sees as the benefits of freer food trade. The group is slated to take its first big public stand today in Geneva, where the WTO has its headquarters. The group is joining like-minded business organizations from 15 countries to call on trade representatives to lower agricultural trade barriers such as tariffs. The fast-food group also wants the WTO to make it harder for countries to concoct food-safety disputes in order to temporarily close borders to commodities such as
chicken and soybeans. The Food Trade Alliance has hired two public-relations firms with experience in trade issues: PBN Co. in Washington and Strategy XXI in New York. The group has also retained Washington law firm Hogan & Hartson, which has worked on trade issues such as U.S. steel tariffs. Lewis E. Leibowitz, an international-trade lawyer at Hogan & Hartson, is working for the lobbying group. Another member of the firm, Clayton Yeutter, a former U.S. agriculture secretary and U.S. trade representative, is an adviser. The creation of the group allows sponsors to "speak with one voice but stay behind the scenes," Mr. Leibowitz said. American fast-food companies paid little attention to the Uruguay Round of trade talks in the early 1990s, when the world's major economic powers first tried to impose discipline on farm subsidies and import barriers. Trade barriers have since become a major headache for U.S. fast-food companies because the companies are making big pushes in overseas markets, creating vast supply lines to places such as Mexico, China, Germany and India. Just more than half of McDonald's roughly 30,000 world-wide units are outside the U.S. Burger King recently opened its first units in Brazil and will soon open its first Chinese unit. Yum's KFC unit arrived in China in 1987, and has since grown to about 1,200 restaurants there. A hodgepodge of tariffs and duties can hamper the ability of these companies to find the least expensive ingredients for their world-wide operations. Costa Rica and Thailand, for example, impose stiff duties on french fries. India has a high duty on pasta. Several nations, such as Canada, tightly control cheese imports. The Yum-backed group, which largely supports the Bush administration's proposals in the Doha Round to eliminate agriculture-export subsidies and reduce farm trading barriers, secured a meeting last week with Allen F. Johnson, chief agricultural negotiator for the U.S. [ April 19, 2005 ]
4. Losing the farm To take the soil of one's land, to make of it bread, and to share that
bread with others seems a most basic form of self-identification. By SALLY ITO, The Globe and Mail, Friday, April 22, 2005 'I sold the farm. The neighbour bought it. I worried about it. But now I
don't." So wrote my 90-year-old great aunt in a recent card to me, closing a
chapter on our family history in this country. The farm. What is it
about losing it that is so painful? For so many Canadians, especially
those of us on the prairies, the news is always hard. The journey of life on the land, the nurturing of lives and livelihood
on its soil, the inevitable passage of time that cripples our ability to
keep ourselves on it is one of those small unspoken tragedies of life.
Like any loss, it is poignant only in the remembrance of particulars.
The farm, in this case, was a quarter section north of Edmonton in a
tiny community called Opal. The farmers were my great aunt and uncle,
Sanjiro and Kiyoe Nakamura. The land was acquired in 1960, four years
before my birth, and it was, from my earliest memory, the "family farm"
-- the one where you learned about those mysterious workings of natural
life: the seasons of planting and harvest, the cycles of birth and
death, the making of one's bread, literally and figuratively, from soil
to table. Over the years, crops of oats, barley and wheat were grown on the fields
while at various turns, turkeys, hogs, and chickens were raised in the
outbuildings. As long as I could remember, there was always a huge
berry-patch full of strawberries alongside a wonderful vegetable garden
filled with produce of all kinds: corn, potatoes, carrots, peas,
tomatoes, onions. So much has passed on that farm in the 45-odd years it
has been in the family that it is hard to let go. For my great aunt (or Aunty Kay as she is known) to relinquish this last
piece of her life history is a final succumbing to the forces of time
and aging. Her recalcitrance in letting go of the place long after
others in the area had sold their farms and left is particularly moving
in light of the family history. A Nisei born before the war, my great
aunt lived through a succession of farms beginning with the 40-acre
berry farm belonging to her father in Surrey, B.C., which she and her
first husband farmed until wartime events forcibly dislocated them to
camps in interior B.C. After the war was over, she and her husband moved temporarily into the
Okanagan valley near Oyama where they rented a plot of land to grow
onions and tomatoes. Her first husband died unexpectedly there, and my
great aunt, now a widow, moved back to her parents who were working the
sugar-beet fields of southern Alberta near Taber. My great aunt worked
the soil with her parents and her brother's family there, planting sugar
beets ("with your back and behind to the wind or else you'd get a
faceful of dust," is what she told me) until a marriage proposal arrived
from Edmonton from an Issei man seeking a bride. My great aunt accepted
and made the journey north to Opal where she and second husband Sanjiro
began their new life together on a farm Aunty Kay could now call her
very own. For Aunty Kay, currently living with her nephew and his wife in Calgary,
to maintain the farm from such a distance was simply too much.
She had no children so there were no direct heirs to the property; over
the years, it was mostly her nephews (my father and his brothers) who
helped looked after things after her husband died in 1987. Aunty Kay
lived at the farm well into her 80s, alone with her dog, until the
arthritis grew so bad that she had to move into Sherwood Park into a
senior's lodge. I remember visiting my aunt in her last year on the farm, taking my
then-toddler son out there every week in the late spring and summer to
enjoy the scenery of the locale. I wanted my son to experience the same
wonder of the place I had when I was a child. What was the wonder of the place? The variegated stand of mixed woodland
forest that surrounded the stuccoed wooden house and the outbuildings.
The path that snaked through it and the adjoining fields to the ruins of
the very first house -- logs patched with sod -- my great aunt and uncle
built on the land. The outbuildings, like the old granary sheds and
chicken coops. The cement pad where the hog barn had been. The old well
used to water the pig trough, the kind with a rope and pulley. The
saskatoon bushes on the road to the house and by the asparagus patch, so
rich with fruit, the berries looked like grapes gleaming in the late
afternoon sunlight. The tiny slough by the garage full of small croaking
frogs we collected as children in the palms of our hands. The apple tree
with white blossoms under which my visiting grandmother would sit in a
rickety lawn chair with aluminum legs. The old Austin from my Uncle
Tom's university days parked and rotting in a stand of aspen behind the
house. The rusting red combine out front we children used to clamber all
over in our weekend visits to the place. The cement stairs in front of the house on which generations of our
families had our photos taken with fat zucchinis, and bucketfuls of
strawberries or piles of unshucked corn at our ankles. In dreams, my aunt's farm appears to me as a symbol of my belonging to
this country. Through her line, we are five generations thick into the
land and although wartime events disrupted our lives and new blood
flowed in from Japan through successive generations of immigrant wives
and mothers, that patch of land in Opal somehow seemed to embody
belonging in a way no urban dwelling ever could. To take the soil of
one's land, to make of it bread, and to share that bread with others
seems to me the most basic form of self-identification. I live on the
land. I eat off it. The land is me. When the family farm goes, there is also an incalculable loss in
identity. I worry about it. Then I don't. Oh, for me to be at last like
Aunty Kay -- to relinquish that last thread of being that defines us.
The land we owned and the life that passed thereon. Sally Ito lives in Winnipeg. 5. New IATP Report: CAFTA Threatens Sugar Producers Press Release from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy Minneapolis - Increased sugar imports required by the proposed Dominican
Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) will threaten
the viability of the U.S. sugar program, finds a new report by the
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP). The end of the U.S.
sugar program would be devastating to sugar and sugar beet farmers in
the U.S., and would hurt sugar farmers in many developing countries,
which are currently guaranteed a share of the U.S. sugar market at a
higher than global price. The report, Sweet or Sour: The U.S. Sugar Program and the Threats Posed
by the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement by
IATP's Dennis Olson, examines the impact of DR-CAFTA on the delicate
balance between supply and demand that is central to the sugar program
which maintains fair market prices and requires no government subsidies. The full report can be read at http://www.iatp.org The Bush Administration has negotiated DR-CAFTA with six other
countries: the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Honduras, and Nicaragua. DR-CAFTA is viewed as crucial to regaining
momentum for the stalled negotiations over the Free Trade Area of the
Americas (FTAA) and at the World Trade Organization (WTO). "The USDA and Bush administration have not been straight about the
impact of DR-CAFTA on U.S. sugar," said IATP's Dennis Olson, lead author
of the report. "When combined with NAFTA commitments made with Mexico
and other trade agreements on the table, the passage of DR-CAFTA would
seal the fate of U.S. sugar growers, and lower prices for sugar growers
in poor countries as well." Major Findings: "For decades now, the U.S. Sugar Program has offered a sound policy
model that has successfully created market stability at little public
expense, while avoiding the structural over-production that leads to
dumping onto international markets," said Olson. "While not perfect, it
provides important lessons on how to design an agriculture program that
benefits farmers and taxpayers. The passage of DR-CAFTA would be a nail
in the coffin of this successful program." The full report, Sweet or Sour: The U.S. Sugar Program and the Threats
Posed by the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement,
can be read at: http://www.iatp.org The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy works globally to promote
resilient family farms, communities and ecosystems through research and
education, science and technology, and advocacy. 6. Business: Supreme Court Says Farmers May Sue in State Courts LINDA GREENHOUSE WASHINGTON, NY Times, April 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that farmers whose crops are damaged by federally approved pesticides or herbicides may pursue damage claims against the manufacturers in state court. Full Story:
http://query.nytimes.com/mem/tnt.html?emc=tnt&tntget=2005/04/28/business/28preempt.html&tntemail0
7. Legislation Would Provide Opportunities for Young Ag Producers, Keep More
Farmland in Production FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - Thursday, April 28, 2005
Congressman Lee Terry Congressman Earl Pomeroy North Dakota CONTACT: Jen Rae Hein (Terry): 202 - 225-4155 WASHINGTON - Congressman Lee Terry (R-NE) and Congressman Earl Pomeroy
(D-ND) today introduced legislation to provide tax relief in the effort to
increase the number of beginning farmers and ranchers, while keeping more of
the nation's agricultural land in production. "Soaring land values and the high rate of absentee land owners often prevent
young agricultural producers from owning their own land. My bill aims to
help the upcoming generation of farmers and ranchers compete with larger
producers. At the same time, it will help preserve productive farm ground
near rural areas," Terry said. "Agriculture is the backbone of North Dakota's economy, and the next
generation of farmers and ranchers represent our state's future,"
Congressman Pomeroy said. "This legislation will make it easier for
individuals to begin their career and ensure that family farmers remain the
basis of production agriculture in this country." The bipartisan legislation would provide capital gains tax relief to land
owners who voluntarily sell their land to "first-time buyer" farmers and
ranchers, as well as to other buyers who keep the land in agricultural
production. The bill has been endorsed by numerous state and national
agricultural organizations, including the American Farm Bureau Federation,
National Farmers Union, and the Center for Rural Affairs. Specifically, the Terry-Pomeroy legislation would create three levels of
relief for farmers and ranchers who choose to sell their land: 1. Producers who sell their agricultural land to a beginning farmer or
rancher would receive a 100% reduction in their capital gains taxes. This
full exemption from the capital gains tax would help level the playing field
for younger producers, who must often compete against larger, established
producers, as well as developers who are able to offer higher prices for
land. (Exemption may not exceed $500,000 per year.) 2. Producers selling their land that will be kept in agricultural
production would receive a 50% reduction in their capital gains taxes. This
provision would help ensure adequate agricultural resources at a time when
landowners are pressured to sell their land for purposes other than
agriculture. 3. All agriculture producers selling their farm or ranchland would receive
an automatic 25% reduction in their capital gains taxes -- regardless to
whom they sell their land, or for what purpose.
8. SUPACHAI SOUNDS WARNING AS WTO EXPECTATIONS FOR JULY DROP FAST Inside US Trade, April 29, 2005 Expectations for a July package of World Trade Organization texts meant
to set the stage for the Hong Kong ministerial at the end of the year
have been dramatically lowered, according to Geneva sources representing
a spectrum of the WTO membership. These sources said a serious dispute
on technical agriculture work and significant differences among members
on non-agricultural market access (NAMA) are the main reasons why
delegations are lowering their aims for July. Highlighting this negative mood, WTO Director General Supachai
Panitchpakdi said in an April 28 address to the WTO's Trade Negotiations
Committee that he has doubts about what members will be able to achieve
in July. Supachai also diverted from his prepared remarks to state his
belief that at their current rate, WTO members would not be able to
achieve a good outcome in July or in December at the Hong Kong
ministerial, according to a WTO spokesman. Supachai indicated he would
be pleased if members could prove him wrong, the spokesman said. Initially, delegations were aiming to have "first approximations" of
possible modalities meant to set more specific terms for negotiations in
agriculture, NAMA and other areas by the end of July, just before
members take a one-month summer break from the talks. These first
approximations were intended to make it easier for delegations to agree
to specific modalities at the Hong Kong ministerial, which would make it
possible to conclude the round sometime in 2006. However, the continued differences in agriculture and NAMA have now made
it apparent that the best outcome that can be achieved in July is for
some negotiating group chairs to provide texts reporting on the progress
their groups have achieved so far. These texts will almost certainly not
be endorsed by the WTO's membership, delegation sources said. In addition, it does not appear possible for many of the texts to be
specific in suggesting areas of agreement, sources said. While these
sources said it is still possible that some chairman's texts,
particularly in agriculture and NAMA, could point at potential areas of
convergence, they said other areas such as rules, trade facilitation,
development and services, are likely to only represent progress reports. "The bar is getting lower by the day," one developing country delegation
source said of the expectations. This had led Supachai to press members to inject a sense of urgency in
the talks, delegation sources said. At an April 25 meeting of a select
group of WTO members, Supachai said he was a little less optimistic
about July at that meeting, but that he did not think it was time to
ring the alarm bell yet about the talks, according to a delegation
source familiar with the meeting. Supachai offered a similar message at the April 28 TNC, as he said the
lack of concrete progress in several areas makes for "a rather worrying
picture." Supachai said members cannot leave too much work for this
fall, and that if members do not kick-start negotiations they will face
serious problems. Besides the problems in agriculture, Supachai noted that talks on
services have not gained momentum despite an approaching end of May
deadline for revised offers. He also noted that negotiations on
improving special and differential treatment for developing countries is
encountering difficulties. A Geneva source was less diplomatic, stating
that services is a mess and the development talks are in "disastrous"
shape. The lowered expectations were also signaled by Tim Groser, the chairman
of the agriculture negotiating group, at a senior officials meeting in
Geneva on April 18-19. Groser asked members at that meeting to consider
whether to endorse the first approximation he would table in July.
Delegation sources said they interpreted this as a signal that members
would not have to endorse any text. At the same meeting, delegation sources said EU Director General for
Trade Peter Carl indicated first approximations delivered in July should
take the form of chairs reporting on the state of negotiations in their
areas, sources said. At the April 28 TNC, Groser said there had been progress since last
summer on export competition and he could see putting something on paper
on domestic subsidies that would go beyond what members agreed last
summer in a July framework that set broad outlines for the talks. But he
acknowledged there has been no progress on market access because of a
dispute over technical work (see related story). Finding a solution to this agricultural dispute is key to determining
what is possible in July, as negotiations on agriculture are likely to
come to a standstill without an agreement on converting tariffs into ad
valorems, delegation sources said. In addition, they said since
agriculture is seen as the key to the entire round, no other sectors are
likely to move forward as long as agriculture is stuck. One developed country delegation source said the dispute over
agriculture and its effects on the negotiations are "extremely serious,"
and added that lowering ambitions for July "does not auger well for the
Hong Kong meeting." While it may have been unrealistic to expect
full-fledged drafts for all of the negotiating areas in July, some draft
texts would help members make progress this fall, the source said. With
only chairman's reports, WTO members will be left with just a few months
this fall to complete most of their work. Another source said that ideally, if there are 10 difficult issues to
solve in the agriculture talks, eight or nine would be solved before the
Hong Kong ministerial, and it is naturally more difficult to reach this
goal if expectations in July are lowered. At the same time, this source
pointed out that the WTO talks generally need pressure in order for
their to be progress, and that it was "far-fetched" to expect members to
steadily make progress throughout the year. While the dispute over agriculture has particularly dimmed moods about
the talks, delegation sources said there is also pessimism about how to
move forward the NAMA talks considering the differences between
ambitious WTO members, particularly among industrialized countries, and
less ambitious developing country members typified by Brazil and India.
"We're far away from a convergence of positions," one developed country
delegation source said, which will make it "extremely difficult" for a
chairman to produce a text with any specificity. WTO members with defensive interests on agriculture tend to be the
members downplaying ambitions for July the most, one developing country
delegation source charged. This source speculated that this is because
those members are willing to trade a non-ambitious result in agriculture
for a lack of ambition on rules, NAMA and other areas. One developed country delegation source agreed that expectations for
July have been lowered, but said this is partly because members
misunderstood what was possible in the first place. This source said
members only started talking about achieving first approximations in
various negotiating areas after Groser set this as his goal for
agriculture, and that texts were never likely to appear in July for
areas beyond agriculture and NAMA. Last summer, members stuck a deal on a framework setting the terms for
future talks after marathon negotiations in Geneva involving some trade
ministers. This has seemed to increase expectations for similar events
this summer, and delegation sources said Supachai has noted that members
do not have the same sense of urgency they had last year at this time.
9. Wind Turbine Manufacturer Partners with John Deere Co. April 21, 2005 India's wind turbine manufacturer Suzlon is taking wind farming to a new
level by partnering with one of the most recognizable names in the U.S.
agricultural industry, the John Deere Co. Suzlon signed an agreement to provide 31 wind turbines, totaling 39 MW of
capacity, for projects financed by John Deere for sites located in Minnesota
and Texas. The move is viewed as a way to gain trust from America's heartland where
there are considerable opportunities for wind power developments. In Texas, Suzlon is providing three projects with a total of 24 units of
the S64, a 1.25 MW wind turbine. Each project will have eight turbines
installed on 73-meter towers. When completed in December 2005 the entire
site will total 30 MW of wind power capacity. For the southwest Minnesota projects, Suzlon is providing seven S64
turbines on 73-meter towers for a total capacity of 8.75 MW. The projects
will be located on the popular Buffalo Ridge and developed by Dave Norgaard,
a farmer and wind power developer based in Tyler, Minnesota. The wind power projects, which are scheduled to be operating by December
31, 2005, follow an earlier effort by Suzlon and John Deere in U.S. wind
energy that was successfully launched in 2004. Suzlon entered the U.S. market in 2003 with its first wind power projects
located in Southwest Minnesota, which features 12 separate sites of approximately 2 MW each. The
collective of wind turbines were developed by Dan Juhl, and include sites
near Brewster, Woodstock, and Pipestone, Minnesota. After the wind power
projects were completed in 2004, John Deere took ownership of the wind
turbines in Brewster, while Edison Mission (formerly known as Edison
Capital) purchased the turbines in Woodstock and Pipestone. Suzlon is a vertically integrated wind-power company, offering consultancy,
design, manufacturing, operation, and maintenance services to provide
customers with total wind power solutions. | |
