Megan Stubbs
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) administers several permanently
authorized programs to help producers recover from natural disasters. Most
of these programs offer financial assistance to producers for a loss in
the production of crops or livestock. In addition to the production
assistance programs, USDA also has several permanent disaster assistance
programs that help producers repair damaged crop and forest land following
natural disasters. These programs offer financial and technical assistance
to producers to repair, restore, and mitigate damage on private land.
These emergency agricultural land assistance programs include the Emergency
Conservation Program (ECP), the Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP), and
the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program. In addition to these
programs, USDA also has flexibility in administering other programs that
allow for support and repair of damaged cropland in the event of an
emergency.
Both ECP and EFRP are administered by USDA’s Farm Service Agency (FSA). ECP
assists landowners in restoring agricultural production damaged by natural
disaster. Participants are paid a percentage of the cost to restore the
land to a productive state. ECP is available only on private land, and
eligibility is determined locally. EFRP was created to assist private
forestland owners to address damage caused by a natural disaster on
nonindustrial private forest land.
The EWP program and the EWP floodplain easement program are administered by
USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the U.S. Forest
Service (USFS). The EWP program assists sponsors, landowners, and
operators in implementing emergency recovery measures for runoff
retardation and erosion prevention to relieve imminent hazards to life and property
created by a natural disaster. In some cases this can include state and federal
land. The EWP floodplain easement program is a mitigation program that
pays for permanent easements on private land meant to safeguard lives and
property from future floods, drought, and the products of erosion.
Most of the emergency agricultural land assistance programs are funded through
supplemental appropriations, rather than annual appropriations. As a
result, funding for emergency agricultural land assistance varies greatly
from year to year. Agricultural land assistance programs do not usually
receive the level of attention that triggers a supplemental appropriation.
Therefore, funding is typically provided for these land assistance
programs as part of a larger supplemental appropriation that funds a
number of agencies and programs beyond agriculture. This irregular funding
method has left some agricultural land assistance programs without funding
during times of high request.
Recent restrictions placed on supplemental appropriations for disaster
assistance have changed the way the agricultural land assistance programs
allocate funding, potentially assisting fewer natural disasters. Language
in the Budget Control Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-25) limits emergency supplemental
funding for disaster relief. Specifically, funding used for disaster relief
must be used for activities carried out pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288)
for FY2012 through FY2021. This means funds appropriated through emergency
supplementals for disaster relief for these 10 years may only apply to
activities with a Stafford Act designation. Since funding for agricultural land
disaster assistance programs is appropriated almost exclusively through
supplementals, this requirement could limit the way agricultural land
assistance programs work in the future, potentially assisting fewer
natural disaster events.
Date of Report: November 7, 2013
Number of Pages: 16
Order Number: R42854
Price: $29.95
To Order:
R42854 .pdf
to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART
e-mail congress@pennyhill.com
Phone
301-253-0881
For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card
number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail
or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing
Charles E. Hanrahan
Senior Specialist in Agricultural Policy
Carol Canada
Information Research Specialist
The United States is the world’s major provider of international food aid
to low-income developing countries. This report provides data on the U.S.
contribution to global food aid as reported by signatories of the
International Food Aid Convention (FAC) and compiled by the International
Grains Council (IGC), as well as data on U.S. and other donor contributions to
the United Nations World Food Program (WFP).
The Food Aid Convention (FAC) is an agreement among donor countries to provide
a minimum amount of food aid to low-income developing countries. The food
aid commitment agreed to by all FAC signatories in 1999 was approximately
4.9 million metric tons (mmt) annually. The United States pledged to
provide 2.5 mmt annually, or 51% of the total annual commitment. A new
FAC, renamed the Food Assistance Convention, was negotiated in 2012. The United
States ratified the new FAC on September 26, 2012. Commitments under the
new convention are pending.
Data from the IGC show that U.S. food aid accounted for 56% of food aid
shipments by FAC signatories over the period 1995/1996-2011/2012.
A substantial portion of U.S. food aid is channeled through the WFP. Over the
period from 1996 to October 20, 2013, around 43% of donor contributions to
the WFP came from the United States.
Date of Report: November 12, 2013
Number of Pages: 14
Order Number: RS21279
Price: $29.95
To Order:
RS21279 .pdf
to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART
e-mail congress@pennyhill.com
Phone
301-253-0881
For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card
number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail
or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing
Megan Stubbs
Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources Policy
The Food Security Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-198, 1985 farm bill) included a
number of significant conservation provisions designed to reduce
production and conserve soil and water resources. Many of the provisions
remain in effect today, including the two compliance provisions—highly erodible
land conservation (sodbuster) and wetland conservation (swampbuster). The two provisions,
collectively referred to as conservation compliance, require that in exchange
for certain U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) program benefits, a
producer agrees to maintain a minimum level of conservation on highly
erodible land and not to convert wetlands to crop production.
Conservation compliance affects most USDA benefits administered by the Farm
Service Agency (FSA) and the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS). These benefits can include commodity support payments, disaster payments,
farm loans, and conservation program payments, to name a few. If a
producer is found to be in violation of conservation compliance, then a
number of penalties could be enforced. These penalties range from temporary
exemptions that allow the producer time to correct the violation, to a
determination that the producer is ineligible for any USDA farm payment
and must pay back current and prior years’ benefits.
As Congress considers the reauthorization of farm policy in the next farm bill,
issues related to conservation compliance have emerged. The reduction in
soil erosion from highly erodible land conservation continues, but at a
slower pace than following enactment of the 1985 farm bill. The leveling
off of erosion reductions leaves broad policy questions related to conservation compliance,
including whether an acceptable level of soil erosion on cropland has been
achieved; whether additional reductions could be achieved, and if so, at
what cost; and how federal farm policy should encourage additional
reductions in erosion. These broad policy questions, in addition to
general concerns of program oversight and implementation, continue to influence
the farm bill debate.
One of the most controversial farm bill proposals involves adding crop
insurance subsidies to the list of benefits that could be lost if a
producer is found to be out of compliance. Federal crop insurance
subsidies were originally included as a benefit that could be denied under the compliance
provisions. However, they were removed in the 1996 farm bill to increase
producer flexibility, while at the same time direct payments were added.
Presently, high commodity prices have resulted in few or no
counter-cyclical payments, leaving conservation program participation and
direct payments as the remaining major benefits that might motivate producer
compliance with conservation requirements. The Senate-passed farm bill (S.
954) would eliminate countercyclical and direct payments, and re-tie
federal crop insurance subsidies to compliance requirements. The
House-passed farm bill (H.R. 2642) would also eliminate direct payments, but does
not tie crop insurance subsidies to compliance requirements. Re-tying crop
insurance subsidies to compliance requirements has been met with mixed
reviews. Most in the conservation and environmental community support the
requirement, while some producer groups and the crop insurance industry
are wary of the linkage. Separately, the Senate and House bills establish a “sodsaver”
provision for new crop production on native sod. The provision reduces crop insurance
premium subsidies and prohibits benefits under the Noninsured Crop Disaster or general
commodity programs on land that has never been tilled. Conference negotiations
to reconcile the two bills are ongoing.
Date of Report: November 4, 2013
Number of Pages: 23
Order Number: R42459
Price: $29.95
To Order:
R42459 .pdf
to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART
e-mail congress@pennyhill.com
Phone
301-253-0881
For email and phone orders, provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card
number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail
or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing
Posts
