DOCSLIB.ORG

2018 Farm Bill Primer: Support for Urban Agriculture

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

May 16, 2019

2018 FarmBill Primer: Support for UrbanAgriculture

Overthe past decade,food policy in the United Stateshas respondedto ongoingshiftsin consumerpreferencesand producertrendsthat favorlocaland regionalfoodsystems while also supporting traditionalfarmenterprises.This support forlocaland regionalfarming has helpedto increase agriculturalproductionin urban areaswithin and surrounding majorU.S.cities. The 2018 farm bill (Agriculture ImprovementAct of2018, P.L. 115-334) providesadditionalsupport forurban, indoor,andother emerging agriculturalproduction, creating newprograms and authoritiesandprovidingadditionalfundingforsuch operations.The lawalso combinesand expands existing programs administeredby the U.S.Department of
(2) Urban Clustersofbetween2,500 and 50,000 people

(Figure 1).An urban area representsdenselydeveloped

territory encompassingresidential,commercial,and other nonresidentialurban landuses. In contrast,ruralareas encompassallpopulation,housing,andterritorynot included within an urban area. Resultsfromthe most recent 2010 U.S. Census indicatethatthe nation’surban population increasedby 12% from2000 to 2010, outpacing

the nation’soverallgrowthof 10% forthe same period.

Figure 1. Census Bureau Urban Designations, 2010

Agriculture (USDA)to providefinancialandresource management support forlocaland regionalfood production.

Urban Farming Operations

Urban farming operationsrepresenta diverse range of systems andpractices.Theyencompass large-scale innovative systems and capital-intensive operations,vertical and rooftopfarms,hydroponic greenhouses(e.g., soilless systems),andaquaponic facilities (e.g.,growingfish and plants togetherin an integratedsystem). Urban farming also includes a rangeofoperationssuchas vacantcity lots,city parks,churchyards,schoolyards,backyards,and community gardens.This diversityhas resultedin a lackof consensusabout whatconstitutesan urbanfarm.Urban agricultur eis not specifically definedin statute,andthe 2018 farm bill refers to this farming demographic as urban,

indoor , a ndothe r e mergin g agr i cultural production but

without specifically defining thisterm.

Source: U.S.CensusBureau, https://www.census.gov/.

Provisions in the 2018 Farm Bill

The 2018 farmbill builds on previoussupportforurban, indoor, and emergingproduction systems as providedin the previoustwo farmbills—the AgriculturalAct of2014(P.L. 113-79) and the Food,Conservation,andEnergy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246) to support localand regionalfood production. Thesefarmprograms are administered by USDA and may be groupedinto the following broad categories:marketing andpromotion,businessassistance and agriculturalresearch,ruraland community
Given the diversityin the typesofurban farming operations, existing data limitations,and lackofconsensus about whatconstitutesan urbanor peri-urbanfarm,USDA does notreport data andstatistics on thenumberofurban farming operationsin the UnitedStates. To address such data needs,the 2018farm bill directs USDA to conduct a “follow-up study” to its most recent CensusofAgriculture to examine U.S. urban farming operations in 2017 (§7212). This study shallprovide information about community gardensandfarms locatedin urbanareas,suburbs,and urban clusters;rooftopfarms; outdoorverticalproduction; green walls; indoorfarms; greenhouses; high-techvertical technology farms; andhydroponic,aeroponic (e.g.,growing plants in an airor mist systemwithoutsoil), and aquaponic facilities,among otherinnovationsin agricultural development,nutritionandeducation,andfarmland conservation.Examples include USDA farmers’market programs,ruralcooperative grants,child nutrition programs, and USDA research and cooperative extension service. Formore information,see CRSIn Focus IF10232,

U.S. Far m P olicy : L ocalandRegionalFoodSystems.

Many ofthe provisions in the 2018 farm bill that support urban agriculture were derived from,orinitially originated in, legislation introduced in the 115th Congress,including the Urban Agriculture Act of2018(S. 3005) and the Urban Agriculture Production Act of2017 (H.R. 3699). These efforts followotherpreviously introduced legislationin the 114th Congress(S.3420, H.R. 6481) and the 113th Congress (H.R. 5616, H.R. 1933). production,as determinedby USDA. The enactedlaw authorizesadditionaltotalappropriationsof $14 million (FY2019-FY2021) forUSDA’s follow-up studyto the2017 agriculturalcensus.

The U.S. CensusBureauidentifies two typesofurban areas:(1) Urbanized Areas of50,000 or more people and

https://crsreports.congress.gov

2018 Farm Bill Primer: Support for Urban Agriculture

The enacted 2018farm bill creates newauthoritiesspecific to urban agriculture (§12302),including: determination ofwhere within USDA theauthorities and the newOffice of Urban Agriculture andInnovative Productionwill be housedhasnot been announced.The

complexity and scale ofthe 2018 farmbill’s newand

modified provisionssupportingurban agriculture— requiring agencyreorganization,establishing an advisory committee,implementing additionalgrantauthorities and pilot projects,merging existingfarmprograms with expanded fundingandmissionareas,andevaluating 2017 CensusofAgriculture datato profile urbanfarmers,among otherUSDA requirements—mayprove challenging.

Congressmay wish to trackUSDA’sprogressin

implementing theseprovisions aspart ofits farmbill oversight.
 an Office of Urban Agriculture and Innovative
Productionat USDA to encourage and promote urban, indoor,and otheremergingagriculturalpractices;
 an Urban Agriculture andInnovative Production
Advisory Committee;
 USDA grant authorityto support the development of urban agriculture andinnovative production;
 pilot projects to operatein countieswith a high concentrationofurbanorsuburban farms; and
 USDA reporting requirements.

The 2018 farmbill authorizes annualappropriationsof$25 million (FY2019-FY2023) to supportthese efforts.

Provisions Related to Urban Agriculture in the
2018 Farm Bill (P.L. 115-334)

Urban Agriculture (§12302).Establishes an Office of Urban
Agriculture and Innovative Production at USDA, an Urban Agriculture and Innovative Production Advisory Committee, a new grant authority for USDA, new USDA pilot projects, and new USDA reporting requirements. Authorizes annual appropriations of $25 million (FY2019-FY2023).

The 2018 farmbill also createsthe Urban,Indoor,and OtherEmerging AgriculturalProduction,Research, Education,andExtensionInitiative(§7212).The initiative authorizesnewcompetitive grants—inconsultation with the Urban Agriculture andInnovative Production Advisory Committee—to support researchandextensionactivitiesto enhance urban,indoor,and otheremerging agricultural production.Theseincludefacilitating urbanagricultural production,harvesting,transportation,packaging,and marketing; assessinganddeveloping strategiesto remediate contaminatedsites;identifyingandpromoting the horticultural,social,and economic factorsthatcontribute to successfulurban,indoor,andotheremergingagricultural production; andexploring newtechnologiesthat minimize energy, lightingsystems,water,andotherinputs.USDA may prioritize proposals involving cooperation with multiple entities andstatesandregionswith significant interest in urbanfarms and indoorproduction.The 2018 farm bill authorizes mandatory funding of $10million throughtheCommodity Credit CorporationforFY2019 to remain available untilexpended,alongwith $10million in annualauthorized appropriations(FY2019-FY2023).

Urban, Indoor, and Other Emerging Agricultural
Production Research, Education, and Extension

Initiative (§7212). Authorizes competitive grants to facilitate urban agricultural production, harvesting, transportation, and marketing, among other activities. Provides $10 million in mandatory funding (FY2019) and authorizes $10 million in annualappropriations through FY2023.Directs USDA to study urban agriculture as part of the 2017 Census of Agriculture.

Local Agriculture Market Program (LAMP) (§10102).

Combines and expandsthe existing Farmers’ Market and Local Food Promotion Program and theValue-Added Agricultural Product Market Development Grants to create LAMP with expanded funding and administrative functions. Provides $50 million annually in mandatory funds.

Conservation Innovation Grants and Payments (§2307).

Expandsexisting competitive grants to cover partnering with farmers to develop innovative practices for “urban,indoor, or other emerging agricultural operations,” including initiatives for

“testing new or innovative conservation approaches.” Provides

$25 million annually through FY2023 from mandatory fundsfor the Environmental Quality Incentives Program.

In addition toprovisionsspecifically supportingurban agriculture,the 2018farm bill expands certain existingfarm bill provisionssupporting localand regionalfarming that may also support urbanfarming.Forexample, the enacted law creates theLocalAgriculture Market Program(LAMP), which combines andexpandstheexisting Farmers’Market and LocalFood PromotionProgramand theValue-Added AgriculturalProductMarketDevelopment GrantsProgram (§10102). LAMPauthorizesUSDA to provide competitive grants to support a range oflocalproductioninitiatives. Othersupport forurbanagriculture may also be available

throughthe2018 farmbill’s expanded support fornewand

beginningfarmers and ranchers as part ofthe newFarming OpportunitiesTrainingandOutreach(FOTO) program (§12301). FOTO similarly combines and expands certain existing USDA programs andauthorizes USDA to make competitive grants supportingtraining,education,outreach, and technicalassistance initiatives.Finally,the enactedlaw includes otherprovisionsin othertitles ofthe 2018farm bill

that may broadly supporturbanagriculture (see textbox).

Research and Development Authority (§11122). Amends

the Federal Crop Insurance Act to require a feasibility study to evaluate the effectiveness of policies for agricultural production systems including urban and small-scale production.

Noninsured Crop Assistance Program (NAP) (§1601).

Amends NAP to establish a streamlined process for the submission of records and acreage reports for agricultural production systems including urban and small-scale production.

Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (§4205).

Increases federal funding for bonusincentives for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program fruit and vegetable purchases, with a portion of the funds for a produce prescription program.

Micro-Grants for FoodSecurity (§4206).Authorizes

appropriations for Micro-Grants for Food Security for specified agricultural activities in certain states and territories.

Other Nutrition (Title IV) Provisions. Reauthorizes

through FY2023 (1) the Senior Farmers’ Market Nutrition

Program, without change (§4201),and (2) the Community Food Projects grant program but reduces its funding (§4017).

Considerations for Congress

USDA has not yetimplemented many ofthe provisionsin the 2018 farmbill. In addition,forurbanagriculture,a
Renée Johnson,Specialist in AgriculturalPolicy

https://crsreports.congress.gov

2018 Farm Bill Primer: Support for Urban Agriculture

IF11210

Disclaimer

This document was preparedby theCongressionalResearch Service(CRS). CRS serves asnonpartisan sharedstaffto congressionalcommittees and MembersofCongress.It operatessolely at thebehest ofandunderthedirection ofCongress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied uponforpurposesotherthanpublic understandingofinformation that has

been providedby CRSto Members ofCongressin connection with CRS’s institutionalrole.CRS Reports,as a workofthe

United StatesGovernment,are notsubject to copyright protection in the UnitedStates.Any CRSReport may be reproducedand distributedin its entiretywithout permissionfromCRS. However,as a CRS Report may include copyrighted imagesormaterialfroma third party,you may needto obtain the permission ofthe copyright holderifyou wish to copy orotherwiseuse copyrightedmaterial.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11210 · VERSION 4 · NEW

Recommended publications
  • Fiscal Policies for Sustainable Agriculture

    Fiscal Policies for Sustainable Agriculture

    Fiscal policies to support Policy Brief sustainable agriculture Agriculture and the SDGs highlight, agriculture subsidies often tend to disproportionately benefit large farmers/corporations and there are more effective ways of providing The agriculture and food production sector is central to the 2030 Agenda for support to people at risk of poverty and hunger. Sustainable Development. As the world’s largest employer, the sector can Addressing these pricing distortions and perverse incentives in the play an important role in efforts to reduce poverty, promote social equity agricultural sector will be critical for delivering several SDGs including and improve people’s livelihoods. However, unsustainable agricultural SDG2 (Zero Hunger), SDG12 (Responsible Production and Consumption), practices and associated land-use change have contributed to biodiversity SDG13 (Climate Action), SDG15 (Life on Land which includes targets on loss, water insecurity, climate change, soil and water pollution, threatening delivery of several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). For example, forestry and biodiversity). The SDG targets recognize the importance of studies have found that agriculture related land-use change is causing over correct food pricing to prevent trade restrictions and distortions in world 70 per cent of tropical deforestation1 and accounts for around one quarter agricultural markets, including the elimination of all forms of agricultural of all greenhouse gas emissions. Agriculture and food production can also export subsidies (T2.b). have significant impacts on human health and well-being. For example, pesticides are among the leading causes of death by self-poisoning, Role of fiscal policy reforms for particularly in low- and middle-income countries2, with related economic sustainable agriculture implications on health care costs and reduced productivity among others.
  • Agricultural Policy and Its Impacts in Rural Economy in Nepal

    Agricultural Policy and Its Impacts in Rural Economy in Nepal

    Himalayan Journal of Development and Democracy, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2011 Agricultural Policy and its Impacts in Rural Economy in Nepal Rajendra Poudel 9 Division of Forestry & Natural Resources West Virginia University Introduction Nepal is considered a high population density developing country and a very high population density per unit of agriculture land. Comparative analysis with the region shows that the Bangladesh and Nepal have the lowest land to labor ratio (0.22 and 0.29 respectively), compared to India (0.61), Sri Lanka (0.51) and Pakistan (0.81). Small holding size of high land fragmentation in Nepal is one of the main reported causes of poverty in rural area. Nepal combines the status of least developed country, landlocked position between two giant protectionist countries (India and China), with attached castes system, armed conflict since 2002, very small farm size and high land fragmentation. The Agriculture Perspective Plan (1995- 2015) defined agriculture as the engine of growth with strong multiplier effects on employment and on other sectors of the economy. In 1995, the Agriculture Perspective Plan (APP) sets the objective of increasing average AGDP from 3% to 5%, and agricultural growth per capita to 3%. Statement of problem The agrarian and social structure of Nepal did not evolve quick enough to cope with the increasing demographic density over resources (contrary to India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Thailand). Participation for change is too late on several fronts (implementation of land reform, intensification techniques, mechanization, commercial alliance, production and trade groups, niche markets, quality control, minimum farm wage policy and monitoring etc.).
  • The Common Agricultural Policy: Separating Fact from Fiction

    The Common Agricultural Policy: Separating Fact from Fiction

    THE COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY SEPARATING FACT FROM FICTION 2 Agriculture and Rural Development The Common Agricultural Policy: Separating fact from fiction Contents 1. The cost of the common agricultural policy to the taxpayer is far too high. ..................... 2 2. Subsidies end up in the wrong hands: the EU spends money without control. ............... 2 3. Nobody knows who receives CAP funds. ....................................................................... 2 4. The EU supports mainly intensive farming. .................................................................... 3 5. There is no need to grant direct payments to EU farmers. Farmers should survive in the free market like any other business. ......................................................................... 3 6. The CAP does not do enough to help protect the environment. ...................................... 3 7. Farmers do not have any negotiating power in the food chain. The EU should do something about this. ..................................................................................................... 4 8. Europe should erect new import barriers to protect our farmers. .................................... 4 9. Overregulation is the cause of many farmers' problems and the EU is imposing too many rules on farmers. ................................................................................................... 4 10. The EU does not guarantee food quality. ....................................................................... 5 11. Farmers are getting
  • Articulating and Mainstreaming Agricultural Trade Policy and Support Measures, Implemented During 2008-2010

    Articulating and Mainstreaming Agricultural Trade Policy and Support Measures, Implemented During 2008-2010

    Articulating and mainstreaming agricultural trade policy support measures This book is an output of the FAO project, Articulating and mainstreaming agricultural trade policy and support measures, implemented during 2008-2010. With a view to maximizing the contribution of trade to national development, a process has been underway in many developing countries to mainstream trade and other policies into national development strategy such as the Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP). A similar process of mainstreaming is strongly advocated, and underway, for trade-related support measures, including Aid for Trade. In view of this, there is a high demand for information, analyses and advice on best approaches to undertaking these tasks. It was in this context that the FAO project was conceived. Its three core objectives are to contribute to: i) the process of articulating appropriate agricultural RTICULATING AND trade policies consistent with overall development objectives; ii) the process of articulating trade support measures; and iii) the process A MAINSTREAMING of mainstreaming trade policies and support measures into national development framework. AGRICULTURAL TRADE The study is based on case studies for five countries - Bangladesh, Ghana, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Tanzania. The approach taken was to POLICY AND SUPPORT analyse how the above three processes were undertaken in recent years. The book presents, in 15 chapters, analyses for each country of the above three topics – agricultural trade policy issues, trade-support MEASURES measures and mainstreaming. Based on these country case studies, three additional chapters present the syntheses on these three topics. The implementation of the FAO project was supported generously by the Department for International Development (DFID) of the United Kingdom.
  • Urban Agriculture As a Keystone Contribution Towards Securing Sustainable and Healthy Development for Cities in the Future

    Urban Agriculture As a Keystone Contribution Towards Securing Sustainable and Healthy Development for Cities in the Future

    © 2020 The Authors Blue-Green Systems Vol 2 No 1 1 doi: 10.2166/bgs.2019.931 Urban agriculture as a keystone contribution towards securing sustainable and healthy development for cities in the future S. L. G. Skara,*, R. Pineda-Martosb, A. Timpec, B. Pöllingd, K. Bohne, M. Külvikf, ́ C. Delgadog, C. M.G. Pedrash,T.A.Paçoi,M.Cujicj́, N. Tzortzakisk, A. Chrysargyrisk, A. Peticilal, G. Alencikienem, H. Monseesn and R. Junge o a Division of Food Production and Society, Dept. of Horticulture, Norwegian Institute of Bioeconomic Research (NIBIO), P.O. BOX 115, 1431 Aas/Reddalsveien 215, 4886 Grimstad, Norway b School of Agricultural Engineering, University of Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain c RWTH Aachen University (Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen), Germany d South-Westphalia University of Applied Sciences, Soest, Germany e School of Architecture and Design, University of Brighton, UK f Institute of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, Friedrich Reinhold Kreutzwaldi 1, Tartu 51006, Estonia g Faculdade de Ciências Sociais e Humanas – Interdisciplinary Center of Social Sciences – CICS.NOVA, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Av. de Berna, 26-C, 1069-061 Lisboa, Portugal h Faculdade de Ciências e Tecnologia, University of Algarve, Faro, Portugal i LEAF, Linking Landscape, Environment, Agriculture and Food, Instituto Superior de Agronomia, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal j Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, University of Belgrade, Mice Petrovica Alasa, Belgrade, Serbia k Department of Agricultural Sciences, Biotechnology and Food Science, Cyprus University of Technology, Anexartisias 33, P.O. BOX 50329, 3603, Limassol, Cyprus l USAMV Bucharest, Marasti Blv 59, Bucharest, Romania m Kaunas University of Technology, Food Institute, K.
  • (7) Planning for Agricultural Uses in Hong Kong

    (7) Planning for Agricultural Uses in Hong Kong

    Planning for Agricultural Uses in Hong Kong October 2016 The overarching planning goal of the Hong Kong 2030+ is to champion sustainable development with a view to meeting our present and future social, environmental and economic needs and aspirations. In this respect, three building blocks, namely planning for a liveable high-density city (Building Block 1), embracing new economic challenges and opportunities (Building Block 2) and creating capacity for sustainable growth (Building Block 3) have been established as the framework for formulating our territorial development strategy under the Hong Kong 2030+. A sustainable agricultural sector in Hong Kong, despite its limited contribution to the overall economy could still present new economic opportunities in support of Building Block 2 by contributing to the diversity of economic sectors. This topical paper constitutes part of the research series under “Hong Kong 2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030” (Hong Kong 2030+). The findings and proposals of the paper form the basis of the draft updated territorial development strategy which is set out in the Public Engagement Booklet of Hong Kong 2030+. Hong Kong 2030+ Table of Contents Preface Part A: Agriculture as a Primary Production Sector 1 Contribution to the Hong Kong’s Economy Poultry and Livestock Keeping Industry Agricultural Land Part B: Types of Commercial Farming in Hong Kong 5 Conventional Farming Organic Farming Agriculture involving Advanced Technology Farmers’ Market FarmFest Part C: New Agriculture
  • Developing a Methodology for Aggregated Assessment of the Economic Sustainability of Pig Farms

    Developing a Methodology for Aggregated Assessment of the Economic Sustainability of Pig Farms

    energies Article Developing a Methodology for Aggregated Assessment of the Economic Sustainability of Pig Farms Agata Malak-Rawlikowska 1,* , Monika G˛ebska 2, Robert Hoste 3, Christine Leeb 4 , Claudio Montanari 5, Michael Wallace 6 and Kees de Roest 5 1 Institute of Economics and Finance, Warsaw University of Life Sciences—SGGW, 02-787 Warsaw, Poland 2 Institute of Management, Warsaw University of Life Sciences—SGGW, 02-787 Warsaw, Poland; [email protected] 3 Wageningen Economic Research, Wageningen University and Research (WUR), NL-6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands; [email protected] 4 Department of Sustainable Agricultural Systems, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), A-1180 Vienna, Austria; [email protected] 5 Centro Ricerche Produzioni Animali—C.R.P.A. S.p.A., 42121 Reggio Emilia, Italy; [email protected] (C.M.); [email protected] (K.d.R.) 6 School of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: The economic sustainability of agricultural production is a crucial concern for most farmers, especially for pig producers who face dynamic changes in the market. Approaches for economic sustainability assessment found in the literature are mainly focused on the short-term economic viability of the farm and rarely take a long-term perspective. In this paper, we propose and test Citation: Malak-Rawlikowska, A.; a new, innovative assessment and aggregation method, which brings about a broader view on G˛ebska,M.; Hoste, R.; Leeb, C.; more long-term aspects of economic sustainability.
  • Agriculture, Trade and the Environment: the Pig Sector

    Agriculture, Trade and the Environment: the Pig Sector

    Agriculture, Trade and the Environment: The Pig Sector 3 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Overview • Pig production in OECD countries raises a number of policy challenges when viewed in terms of the economic, environmental and social dimensions of sustainable agriculture. Pigmeat accounts for nearly 40% of world meat consumption, and pigs are extremely efficient at converting feed to meat. Given the rapidly expanding global demand for meat and the projected need for a 20% increase in global food production by 2020, the pig sector will continue to play an important role in meeting this demand. At the same time, the environmental consequences of pig production are of increasing public concern, particularly regarding the management of pig manure in relation to water and air pollution. There are also human health issues, especially for those engaged in or living nearby large-scale pig operations. Within this broader challenge, this study focuses primarily on the linkages between pig production, trade and the environment. In particular, two linkages have been explored: the impact of trade liberalisation on pig production and the environment; and the impact on competitiveness of policies introduced to reduce the negative environmental effects of pig production. Animal welfare requirements also have a significant impact on pig producers, but a review of these policies is beyond the scope of this study. Six main conclusions emerge from this study and are discussed in more detail in the following sections. • In regions with a high concentration of pig production there is a larger risk of negative environmental effects such as water pollution e.g. in regions of Northern Europe, Japan and Korea, although the risk is increasing in North America, Spain and Ireland.
  • The Design of Policy Instruments Towards Sustainable Livestock Production in China: an Application of the Choice Experiment Method

    The Design of Policy Instruments Towards Sustainable Livestock Production in China: an Application of the Choice Experiment Method

    sustainability Article The Design of Policy Instruments towards Sustainable Livestock Production in China: An Application of the Choice Experiment Method Dan Pan Institute of Poyang Lake Eco-Economics, Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics, Nanchang 330013, China; [email protected]; Tel.: +86-791-8381-0553; Fax: +86-791-8381-0892 Academic Editor: Tan Yigitcanlar Received: 31 March 2016; Accepted: 24 June 2016; Published: 5 July 2016 Abstract: In face of gradual ecological deterioration, the Chinese government has been in search of more efficient and effective mitigation policies, aiming to promote the sustainability of livestock production. However, researchers and policy makers seem to neglect a key issue: pinpoint policies are the most important, which means niche targeting is the premise before any policy design, such that better knowing of the livestock farmers preference is prerequisite. This paper then analyzes this question using a method of choice experiment to elicit the farmers’ preference and valuation of livestock pollution control policy instruments at household-scale, medium-scale and large-scale farms. Five attributes (technology regulation, pollution charge, biogas subsidy, manure price, and information provisioning) were set as livestock pollution control policy instruments. In total, 754 pigs farmers from five representative provinces in China were surveyed, and the collected data were analyzed using random parameter logit models. The marginal substitution rates for attributes are estimated both with preference space approach and willingness to pay space approach. The results show significant heterogeneities in farmers’ preferences and valuations for livestock pollution control policy instruments within the three scales. All policy instruments effectively increased the manure eco-friendly treatment ratio for medium-scale farms, and household-scale farms showed little change in the manure eco-friendly treatment ratio under all policy instruments.
  • Monetary Policy Actions and Agricultural Sector Outcomes: Empirical Evidence from South Africa

    Monetary Policy Actions and Agricultural Sector Outcomes: Empirical Evidence from South Africa

    E-ISSN 2039-2117 Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences Vol 5 No 1 ISSN 2039-9340 MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy January 2014 Monetary Policy Actions and Agricultural Sector Outcomes: Empirical Evidence from South Africa Brian Muroyiwa Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Extension, University of Fort Har Email: [email protected], Innocent Sitima Department of Economics University of Fort Hare Email: [email protected] Kin Sibanda Department of Economics University of Fort Hare Email: [email protected] Abbyssinia Mushunje Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension University of Fort Hare Email: [email protected] Doi:10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n1p613 Abstract This study looks at the impact of monetary policy on South African agriculture, making use of the linkages that exist between interest rates, the macroeconomic environment and the agricultural sector. Utilising yearly data from 1970 to 2011, this study empirically investigates the impact of monetary policy on agricultural gross domestic product in South Africa using Vector Error Correction Model (VECM). The study finds that inflationary shocks and the money market rate have an enormous negative impact on the performance of the Agricultural GDP whilst the manufacturing index and the stock market help to improve the agricultural GDP. A unit increase in money market rate results in a decrease in the Agricultural GDP by approximately 0.021 percentage points. The study concludes that it is imperative for South Africa’s monetary policy authorities’ and agricultural sector policy makers as well participants to consider carefully the interaction between the macroeconomic environment, agricultural sector and stock prices. Keywords: Monetary Policy, VECM, Agricultural GDP 1.
  • Agricultural Policy Design and Implementation: a Synthesis”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No

    Agricultural Policy Design and Implementation: a Synthesis”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No

    Please cite this paper as: van Tongeren, F. (2008-03-01), “Agricultural Policy Design and Implementation: A Synthesis”, OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers, No. 7, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/243786286663 OECD Food, Agriculture and Fisheries Papers No. 7 Agricultural Policy Design and Implementation A SYNTHESIS Frank van Tongeren TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. The positive agenda for policy reform ............................................................................................ 2 2. The policy cycle .............................................................................................................................. 3 3. What are the policy objectives? ....................................................................................................... 6 4 Do current policies meet objectives? ............................................................................................... 6 5. What are the characteristics of a new policy set? ............................................................................ 9 6. How to implement new policies? .................................................................................................. 23 7. How to monitor and evaluate? ....................................................................................................... 24 8. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 26 Boxes Box 1. The OECD definition of decoupling .............................................................................................
  • The Impacts of Monetary Policies on US Agriculture S

    The Impacts of Monetary Policies on US Agriculture S

    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 1985 The impacts of monetary policies on US agriculture S. Devadoss Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Part of the Economics Commons Recommended Citation Devadoss, S., "The impacts of monetary policies on US agriculture " (1985). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 7838. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/7838 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS Tliis reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed.