NEWS
746
of 1173
News
08.06.2017

India - Gale force winds damage hundreds of acres of banana farms

Heavy rain accompanied by gales destroyed hundreds of acres of banana farms in and around Papanasam near Kumbakonam in Thanjavur district in India on Tuesday. Papanasam and many parts of Kumbakonam in Thanjavur district received heavy rain on Monday night. Several low lying areas in the town were inundated following the downpour which lasted for over an hour. Thousands of banana trees raised on hundreds of acres of lands in Patteeswaram, Thenampadugai, Thirumettraligai, Thiruvalansuzhi and Valayappettai were destroyed by the strong winds. Several other trees were also damaged in Kumbakonam, Papanasam, Thiruvidaimaruthur. Meanwhile, R Ayyaru, 55, a farmer and native of Thurumbur village near Papanasam, died on the spot after he came into contact with live electric wires lying on the ground, on Tuesday morning. He was going to his banana farm when the incident happened. Papanasam police registered the case and are investigating. Source - timesofindia.indiatimes.com

08.06.2017

India - Farmers hope to recover fromcrop loss as Yadgir receives rain

According to information given by officials of the Statistical Department, Saidapur in Yadgir taluk has received the highest rainfall of 67.6 mm on Wednesday. The lowest rainfall of 0.6 mm was recorded in Surpur town in the district. The rainfall received in other places are: Narayanpur 59 mm, Balichakra 54 mm, Kakkera 39 mm, Kodekal 27 mm, Hunasagi 23 mm, Konkal 20 mm, Hattikuni 13 mm, Wadagera 12 mm and Yadgir 10 mm. No rain was recorded at the gauge centres at Gogi, Bheemarayanagudi, Dornalli, Hattigudur in Shahapur taluk. Meanwhile, farmers, who faced severe drought in the last three years, are expecting a good spell of rainfall during the monsoon and hope to recover from the crop loss. According to Agriculture Department sources, the spell of showers would help farmers in preparing land for kharif sowing. The department has set a target of covering 2.69 lakh hectares under various crops for the season. Of this, 85,000 hectares has been earmarked for red gram, followed by 55,000 hectares for paddy, 49,000 hectares for cotton and 45,600 hectares for green gram. Of the total target area, 71,650 hectares is in Yadgir taluk, 99,992 hectares in Shahapur taluk and 97,602 hectares in Surpur taluk, respectively. Chetana Patil, Joint Director of the department, said that area under cotton is likely to increase as farmers in a few parts of the district may take up cotton cultivation, after green gram. She said that farmers would have commenced sowing by this time, if the district had received pre-monsoon rain early. Source - http://www.thehindu.com/

08.06.2017

Belgium - After 10 June it will be known if frost damage was an agricultural disaster

The Belgian fruit cultivation sector is currently waiting with bated breath whether the night frost of 19 to 20 April will be recognised as an agricultural disaster. This will become known after 10 June. “We then get a view of the total amount of damage. At the moment, every municipality is busy questioning the growers and estimating their damage. To ‘obtain’ that recognition of an agricultural disaster, the amount of damage must be at least 1.24 million euro,” explains Leen Jolling from Boerenbond. “Per damage-dossier, this is 5,580 euro. Only if we meet all the conditions, will we get recognition.” Twenty years Up till now, the first step for recognition of an agricultural disaster was made by recognising the exceptional weather circumstances by the KMI. The analysis done by the KMI indicates that in 225 out of 308 municipalities the cold was exceptionally severe, and hadn’t been seen in 20 years. The first figures of late-April of the Boerenbond indicate member fruit growers estimate 78 per cent of apples, 82 per cent of cherries and 63 per cent of pears were affected. “Not much more is known at the moment, we haven’t conducted any questionaires since then. We currently don’t have a view of it yet. If the amount of damage is less than 1.24 million, there won’t be recognition and growers will not be compensated. We now have to await what will happen in coming weeks. Growers naturally hope for good news. I think we will reach that amount. Damages have been recorded for many different kinds of cultivation companies, both in fruit cultivation and in ornamental plant cultivation.” Source - http://www.freshplaza.com

08.06.2017

Spain - Storm destroys all apricots yet to be harvested in Caravaca

The recent hailstorm recorded in the municipalities of Caravaca and Moratalla unfortunately had very negative consequences. It especially affected the districts of Barranda, Singla and La Almudema, where hailstones of two to four centimetres in diameter were observed. Agricultural producers suffered the biggest problems, as both the rain and hail damaged the apricots that had yet to be harvested Pedro Guerrero, head for the Nuts department at Fecoam, explained that this storm has affected "the little apricot that had yet to be harvested, as well as the olives that were now in the middle of the setting stage, which although still small, may have suffered a lot of damage," he lamented. Guerrero also recalled that this hail has affected the cereal that was still unharvested. Lastly, he recalled that "at a foliar level, it has caused damage to all trees, and in the almond sector, it may have damaged the tree more than the fruit," explaining that "these losses of foliage caused by hail affect the tree's health at a time when it may be difficult for it to continue bearing the fruit it had in all its branches." The vehicles that were circulating the roads in the area at that time were also surprised by the severe storm, which left up to 17 litres per square meter in an hour in some places. The drivers had to take refuge in petrol stations and restaurants of the area until the storm was over. In the hamlet of Barranda, more than half a dozen cars were damaged, as the hail broke their windscreens. The roads also suffered the impact of the storm, especially the one connecting Caravaca and Venta de Cavila, as well as the access to some districts, where several dry riverbeds were flooded. The authorities asked everyone to take all possible precautions. Source - laopiniondemurcia.es

08.06.2017

Spain - Hail damages 15,000 hectares in Valencia

The hail that has fallen over the weekend in various parts of the Region of Valencia has caused damage to some 15,000 hectares of crops in the province of Valencia, especially in Camp de Túria, Ayora-Cofrentes, Los Serranos, Vall d'Albaida and the Ribera Baixa. The most affected crops in terms of extension, with about 3,000 hectares each, are cereals, olives (although there will be little damage to the crop) and almonds (for which more production damage is expected). As reported by the Unió de Llauradors (Growers' Association) in a statement, citrus fruits have also been affected, with a little more than 2,500 hectares hit. Other crops affected are wine grapes, with 1,400 hectares, apricots, with 400 hectares, kakis (384 hectares), peaches (350 hectares) and plums (100 hectares). The extent of the damage has differed depending on the specific area; for example, there are plots with 100% damage, while others only 500 metres away have recorded minimal incidence. This makes it difficult to quantify the damages, as pointed out by the same sources. The most affected region is the Ayora-Cofrentes Valley, with a little less than 6,000 hectares hit, and in Camp de Túria there are about 5,000 hectares affected, especially in the municipalities of Casinos, Llíria, Pedralba and Pobla de Vallbona. In general, and despite all of the above, the rain has been welcome in most regions, although growers lament that there have been very short episodes with great precipitation, which means that the land will be unable to absorb all the water. Source - http://www.freshplaza.com

07.06.2017

USA - A historic year for billion-dollar weather and climate disasters

In 2016, the  U.S. experienced 15 weather and climate disasters with losses exceeding $1 billion, causing a total of $46.0 billion in damages. This was the second highest number of billion-dollar events in the 37-year record (1980-2016), one less than the 16 events that occurred in 2011. Four of these were inland flooding events not associated with named tropical storms, doubling the previous record for number of billion-dollar inland flood events in one year, which occurred several years, most recently in 2015. This is a notable record, further highlighted by the numerous other record flooding events that have impacted the U.S. in 2016... Full summary: NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) tracks U.S. weather and climate events that have great economic and societal impacts (www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions). Since 1980, the U.S. has sustained 203 weather and climate disasters where the overall damage costs reached or exceeded $1 billion (including CPI adjustments, as of January 2017). The cumulative costs for these 203 events exceeds $1.1 trillion. The year 2016 was an unusual year, as there were 15 weather and climate events with losses exceeding $1 billion each across the United States. These events included drought, wildfire, 4 inland flood events, 8 severe storm events and a tropical cyclone event (see map below). Cumulatively, these 15 events caused $46.0 billion in total, direct costs and led to 138 fatalities. 2016 observed the 2nd highest annual total of U.S. billion-dollar disasters behind the 16 events that occurred in 2011. Perhaps most surprising were the 4 separate billion-dollar inland flood (i.e., non-tropical) events during 2016, doubling the previous record, as no more than 2 inland flood events have occurred in a year since 1980. Three of these flood events were clustered in Louisiana and Texas between March and August, collectively causing damage approaching $15.0 billion. This is a notable record, further highlighted by the numerous other record flooding events that impacted the U.S. in 2016. The changing frequency of billion-dollar disaster events: The U.S. has experienced a rising number of events that cause significant amounts of damage. From 1980–2016, the annual average number of billion-dollar events is 5.5 (CPI-adjusted). For the most recent 5 years (2012–2016), the annual average is 10.6 events (CPI-adjusted). The year 2005 was the most costly since 1980 due to the combined impacts of Katrina, Rita, Wilma and Dennis, as shown in the following time-series. The year 2012 was the second most costly due to the extreme U.S. drought ($30 billion) and Superstorm Sandy ($65 billion) driving the losses. The increase in population and material wealth over the last several decades are an important factor for the increased damage potential. This is further complicated as many population centers and vulnerable infrastructure exist in hazardous areas, while building codes are also insufficient in reducing damage from extreme events. Regarding specific event types, the U.S. has experienced a higher frequency of billion-dollar inland flood events (i.e., non-tropical) in recent years. Perhaps this should not be unexpected, as heavy rainfall events and the ensuing flood risks are increasing due to the fact that warming loads the atmosphere with more water vapor (NCA, 2014). Over time this increases the potential for extreme rainfall events, which we have experienced more of in recent years (e.g., Colorado, Texas, Louisiana, South Carolina, West Virginia, etc.) Other types of extreme weather events have also shown a higher frequency including the semi-persistent Western drought and wildfire seasons since the year 2000. It has been observed that wildfire seasons are lengthening in the Western states and Alaska (NCA, 2014) while forestry management budgets are increasingly diverted for wildfire suppression costs (USFS, 2015). In contrast, there have been fewer cold wave / crop freeze events and destructive winter storm events, which were more frequent in the 1980s and 1990s. It is worth noting that in recent decades, the ratio of broken U.S. record high vs. record low temperatures has been dominated by new record highs, with far fewer record lows (NCAR, 2016; NCEI, 2017). However, trends in winter storm event intensity are subject to more uncertainty than only temperature. Since 1980, landfalling tropical cyclones have been intermittent but are highly destructive. These impacts will only become more costly, as population and wealth continues to concentrate along our coasts. Severe local storm impacts (i.e., tornado, hail, straight-line winds) have risen in recent years but long-term trends in these events are subject to greater uncertainties (Tippet et al., 2016). The frequency of disaster events by type: The distribution of damage from U.S. Billion-dollar disaster events across the 1980-2016 period of record (as of January 2017, CPI-adjusted) is dominated by tropical cyclone losses. The following table highlights that landfalling tropical cyclones have caused the most damage ($560.1 billion) and have the highest average event cost ($16.0 billion / event). Drought ($223.8 billion), severe storms ($180.1 billion) and inland flooding ($110.7 billion) have also caused considerable damage based on the list of billion-dollar events. It is of note that severe storms are responsible for the highest number of billion-dollar disaster events (83) yet the average event cost is the lowest ($2.2 billion) but still substantial. Tropical cyclones and flooding represent the second and third most frequent event types (35 and 26), respectively. Tropical cyclones are also responsible for the highest number of deaths (3,210), followed by drought/heatwave events (2,993) and severe storms (1,546). The spatial distribution of disaster events by type: The U.S. is weather and climate conscious for good reason, as each geographic region faces a unique combination of persistent hazards. The maps below reflect the frequency of the billion-dollar disaster events impacting each state (i.e., does not mean that each state shown has suffered $1 billion in losses for each event). Each disaster type has a distinct footprint of impact over time. We see wildfire impacts largely west of the Plains states including a few Southeast impacts. The high frequency inland flooding events often occur in states adjacent to large rivers or the Gulf of Mexico, which is a warm source of moisture to fuel rainstorms. Drought impacts are most focused in the Southern and Plains states where there are billions of dollars in agriculture and livestock assets. Severe local storm events are common in the Plains and into the Ohio River Valley states. Winter storm impacts are concentrated in the northeast given the propensity for Nor’easters while tropical cyclone impacts range from Texas to New England but also impact many inland states. In total, from 1980–2016, the U.S. South/Central and Southeast regions experienced a higher frequency of billion-dollar disaster events than any other region, as shown in the red total disaster map. This map reflects the cumulative diversity, frequency, & severity of weather & climate events impacting these regions. Source - https://www.linkedin.com

07.06.2017

USA - Farmers decry Trump plans to cut agriculture subsidies

Farm groups and some members of Congress from farm states are decrying proposed cuts to crop insurance and other safety net programs for farmers included in President Donald Trump’s budget. The proposed cuts come even as farmers are facing their fourth straight year of falling income, and could particularly affect farm states such as Iowa, Kansas and Nebraska that helped Trump win the November election. “Clearly, this budget fails agriculture and rural America,” American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall said in a statement. The proposed budget would cap the amount of money the U.S. government provides to help farmers pay insurance premiums and eliminates insurance coverage for lost revenue when crop prices and per-acre yields fall. That would reduce the federal insurance program’s budget by $28 billion over 10 years. Trump also has proposed reducing subsidies to farmers, cutting those programs by $9 billion by decreasing the maximum income level from $900,000 to $500,000 for a farmer to be eligible. The budget also would cut 5,263 jobs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a 5.5 percent reduction in staff. Farmers, economists and agriculture experts say it is important to support the agriculture sector, which makes up about 11 percent of U.S. employment, or about 21 million jobs, and contributes nearly $1 trillion to the nation’s domestic productivity. “The strength of the agricultural economy has implications for rural America, but also for the larger U.S. economy,” Robert Johansson, the USDA’s chief economist, told senators last month. Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, the leading Democrat on the Senate Agriculture Committee, warned that the proposed cuts “would have a disproportionate impact on small towns across our country and leave those communities in crisis.” But some people say there’s no need for farmers to worry just yet. “What I’ve been telling farmers is let’s just relax a bit before we panic. It’s going to be hard for Trump to get anything done. That’s become really obvious,” said Brent Gloy, a former Purdue University agriculture economist who now works full time on his family’s corn, soybean and wheat farm in southwest Nebraska, where Trump had strong support. Indeed, U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who owns a farm in Iowa and is a member of the agriculture and budget committees, doesn’t expect the crop insurance cuts to make it through Congress. Grassley considers Trump’s budget a nonstarter, much like the budget proposals of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, who also suggested farm program cuts that never materialized. “Most budgets are dead on arrival,” Grassley said during a recent conference call with reporters. “I don’t say that to be negative about any of the three presidents I’ve said it about.” Farmer Harold Wolle, who lives in a Minnesota county where 55 percent of voters chose Trump, makes the same point and says it’s too early in the process for Trump supporters to be disappointed. “We’re fortunate that Congress writes the budget, not the executive branch,” said Wolle, president of the Minnesota Corn Growers Association. Subsidies for crops and crop insurance have sustained grain farmers in recent years as prices plummeted for wheat, corn and soybeans thanks to favorable weather that boosted harvests. The U.S. Department of Agriculture reported in February net farm income is expected to fall 8.7 percent this year to $62.3 billion, half of the $123.7 billion income posted in 2013. The Trump administration says the proposed cuts help fulfill a campaign promise to balance the federal budget. “I believe the people knew what they were doing when they elected President Trump president,” Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue said in conference call with Iowa reporters. “I see it as an opportunity to demonstrate to the American people we can do more with less and we will do more with less. We’re going to be winning in the end.” Iowa farmer Chris Petersen, who voted for Hillary Clinton in November after supporting Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination, actually supports some cuts to farm subsidies, saying they promote the overproduction of certain crops. “I believe in protecting agriculture and farms of all sizes up to a certain size. It’s a national food security issue,” said Petersen, who raises hogs, cattle and vegetables, which he sells to local residents and restaurants. “But it comes to a certain point where it’s just on steroids basically and there needs to be more management.” He says Trump supporters from depressed rural areas who thought they were electing someone who would help them should have known better. “You get what you voted for,” he said. “People better be thinking about rural economies, the rural people, jobs, stability and changing things around so it works better for rural. A lot of people didn’t think this out too good.” Source - http://www.daily-chronicle.com

07.06.2017

Bulgaria - Pepper producers want increased aid for insurance

The Bulgarian Pepper Association (APB) has asked the country's Minister of Agriculture, Food and Forestry (MAF), Rumen Porozhanov, to increase the funding for insurances by 500,000 Lev (about 255,720 Euro). They point out that fruit and vegetable insurance funds are exhausted, and only 1.5% of producers have been able to insure their production from this aid. "This spring has been cold, and there has been a delay with the seedlings of about 15-20 days, which has deprived field growers from the opportunity to take advantage of this aid," the letter said. The ABP expects this request to be met by 30 June 2017. Source - m.fermer.bg

07.06.2017

Taiwan - Agricultural losses from torrential rain surpass NT$100 million

Agricultural losses in Taiwan from recent days of torrential rain have exceeded NT$100 million (US$3.32 million), the Council of Agriculture (COA) said Tuesday. As of 11 a.m. Tuesday, agricultural losses and damage to farm facilities caused by the torrential rain last weekend had reached NT$138.14 million, according to the COA. Yunlin County in central Taiwan suffered the heaviest losses at NT$28.79 million, or 21 percent of the total national losses, it said. The northern city of New Taipei reported NT$20.32 million in agricultural losses, followed by central Taiwan's Nantou County with NT$18.61 million, Taitung County in the east at NT$16.74 million and Yilan County at NT$16.33 million, the COA said. Crop damage accounted for most of the losses, with 3,968 hectares of farmland and NT$96.21 million-worth of crops damaged, the COA said. Watermelon farmers took the biggest hit, suffering crop losses of NT$22.23 million and damage to 360 hectares of farmland, it said. Other crops damaged include rice, corn, persimmons and peanuts, it added. Meanwhile, the livestock sector has suffered NT$9.47 million in losses, largely due to the loss of chickens, geese and pigs, the COA said. Losses in fish products reached NT$1.76 million, it said. Other losses were estimated at NT$30.7 million, including flooding or erosion of farmland and damage to farm facilities, the COA said. Source - http://focustaiwan.tw

07.06.2017

USA - How farms, farmers deal with climate change

Agriculture may well be one of the industries hardest hit by the effects of global warming. The non-profit Natural Resources Defense Council, a leading environmental advocacy group, reports that warming-related drought and flooding is already behind tens of billions of dollars in American agricultural losses annually. Given this growing threat, more and more farmers are looking to incorporate tools and techniques — let alone switch up what crops they grow — to be prepared for the big environmental changes already underway. According to Washington State University’s Center for Sustaining Agriculture & Natural Resources, some of the most promising warming-friendly farming technologies and practices include conservation tillage (stirring up the soil less), precision agriculture (which employs information technology to monitor crop development, refine soil inputs and optimize growing conditions), improved cropping systems (refining the sequence of which crops follow each other on a given piece of land), and anaerobic digestion of organic wastes (via capturing methane waste and turning it into usable energy). NRDC has been working on sustainable agriculture for decades, and recently launched its Climate Resistant Farms campaign to focus on helping farmers roll with the punches of global warming through implementation of some of these new techniques. The group works directly with farmers to develop and share some of these best practices regarding soil health and water use. “Climate change and extreme weather will likely have detrimental impacts on crop production, but farmers can use cover crops and other soil stewardship practices to make their farms more resilient to the climate change impacts already being felt and those likely to come in the years ahead,” reports NRDC. “Such practices can also help to reduce and capture the greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change.” NRDC analyzed the carbon capture and water-holding benefits of soil stewardship methods to increase soil organic matter in the 10 highest-value-producing agricultural states in the U.S. They found that “using cover crops on just half of the acres devoted to the nation’s two most ubiquitous crops — corn and soybeans — in those top 10 states could help capture more than 19 million metric tons of carbon each year and help soils retain an additional trillion gallons of water.” But despite the benefits, fewer than seven percent of U.S. farms plant cover crops, while only one percent of total cropland nationally has them. NRDC would like to see the Federal Crop Insurance Program — which is backed by U.S. taxpayers — offer discounts to farmers who implement cover crops “just as safe drivers can get discounts on their car insurance.” “While the program was created to help farmers manage risk, premiums are set using a formula that fails to equip them for the challenges of climate change,” states NRDC. “Instead, the program spurs farmers to make risky production decisions.” NRDC points out that besides saving taxpayer dollars in insurance payouts, expanding climate-friendly agricultural practices helps “ensure a reliable food supply for the nation even in the face of more extreme weather and climate risks.” Source - http://myjournalcourier.com

07.06.2017

Australia - Multi peril crop insurance: Rebate adverts cost $39k

THE Federal Government spent nearly $40,000 on advertising multi-peril crop insurance rebates but has only paid $107,000 in rebates to farmers. Agriculture Minister Barnaby Joyce last week disclosed the Department of Agriculture and Water Resources had spent $39,208 advertising the Managing Farm Risk program. This information was in a response to a question on notice from opposition agriculture spokesman Joel Fitzgibbon, tabled last week. The program is designed to provide one-off rebates to eligible farm businesses to help with upfront costs of applying for a multi-peril insurance policy. The “perils” covered by these insurance policies can include flood, heat stress, wind, frost, lightning, insect infestation or plant disease, which are not covered by a general crop policy, which usually only covers hail and fire. The Weekly Times revealed last week the Managing Farm Risk program had paid out just $107,000 since it was announced in March last year. The amount paid to farmers is a fraction of the $20.2 million allocated to the program over four years. The advertising costs disclosed by Mr Joyce were as a result of two advertising digital and print media campaigns in April last year and February this year. The response to Mr Fitzgibbon also included the amount of unspent budget allocation from the program, which was returned to general government revenue. The amount not spent in 2015-16 from this program was $3.653 million, while so far 2016-17, $3.012 million has not yet been spent with less than a month until the end of the financial year. Mr Fizgibbon said these revelations brought into question the amount really spent under the Government’s Agriculture Competitiveness White paper and was “another example of poor policy development and program design under Barnaby Joyce’s watch”. “Barnaby Joyce must stop claiming he has delivered a $4 billion Agriculture Competitiveness White paper, when we continually see that allocated funding is not spent, or redirected to other programs.” Mr Joyce responded that the Department had commenced a routine review of the program this year and would “monitor and evaluate” its effectiveness in meeting its objectives. Chief executive of multi peril insurance underwriting company Assetinsure, Gregor Pfitzer, said he wasn’t surprised the government rebate program had poor uptake. He said he would like the Federal Government to implement a recommendation of a NSW Government multi-peril crop insurance review, for an upfront premium subsidy. “The facts are clear all over the world, where multi-peril crop insurance is supported by government, it helps make all farm businesses more resilient,” he said. Source - http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au

06.06.2017

Africa - Conference Makes Case for Agriculture Insurance

Agriculture remains mostly neglected but has potential that insurers are yet to tap, according to various speakers who attended the 44th African Insurance Organization (AIO) conference held at Speke resort Munyonyo recently. The conference came at a time when farmers were facing a tough time with widespread crop failure and livestock decimation due to prolonged drought. Media reports have indicated that up to 10 million Ugandans face starvation. Rahab Kariuki, the managing director of Africa and Climate Risk Enterprise (ACRE), said most African countries are doing little to diversify the sector with 80 per cent of farmland still managed by smallholder farmers. "Some 75 per cent of the world's food is generated from only 12 plants and five animal species, making the global food system highly vulnerable to shocks," Kariuki said. Last December, the ministry of finance released a $1.9 million (Shs 6.8bn) subsidy meant to help boost uptake of agricultural insurance and save farmers from losses related to weather conditions. However, insurers were cautious to provide cover after projections of a likely poor harvest at the beginning of 2017. Agriculture remains one of the riskiest ventures for insurers, especially in Uganda where most farmers depend on archaic methods to grow crops. Consequently, many insurers choose to stay away. The sector faces challenges like low insurance uptake and bad perceptions, affordability, insufficient data on crop varieties and poor product designs, among others. Shadrack Mapfumo, senior financial sector specialist at the World Bank, said insurance companies should invest more money in crop varieties such as maize, arguing that this would help secure farmers from poor harvests. "Even that crop variety that insurance companies say is not insurable, [it can be insured] only that because they [insurers] have not studied it. We need to find ways of contributing to the reduction of risk," Mapfumo said. An agricultural risk assessment carried out in 2015 estimated that the country loses between $606 million and $804 million annually due to pests, post-harvest losses and diseases in crops and livestock. Losses resulting from drought alone peak at $44 million, the study says. Three quarters of Ugandans are employed in the agriculture sector. They hardly access finance as only about 10 per cent of the banking sector channels their lending towards the sector. The 2014 National Census said 69 per cent of Ugandans were stuck in subsistence farming. A 2016 International Monetary Fund report said improved access to cost-effective financial risk transfer instruments, such as insurance, is a crucial measure to boost the ability to hedge against weather-related shock events. Kariuki suggested that ICT and the data revolution can be harnessed to improve index insurance to capture the risks that tend to push insurance companies away from providing cover to certain groups. Ibrahim Lubega Kaddunabbi, the chief executive officer at Insurance Regulatory Authority (IRA), said Uganda was slow at developing online products due to lack of a guiding policy framework to protect insurers from fraud. "We also need to work on the fraud to make sure that people are not cheated because there might be those who are correctly selling and impersonators," Kaddunabbi said. Insurance penetration in Uganda remains dismally low - at less than one per cent - compared to its peer Kenya, which is above three per cent. Source - http://allafrica.com

06.06.2017

South Africa - Cold front expected to bring welcome rains to parts of Western Cape

An "intense" weather system could bring as much as 80mm of rain to mountainous areas in the Western Cape. But according to Michael Barnes of the South African weather service's Cape Town weather office, the system does not mean an end to the dry weather currently being experienced in the southern and western parts of the country. "An intense cold front will make landfall late on Tuesday evening. Rainfall is expected over the western parts of the Western Cape and the Northern Cape is expected to see between 20 and 40mm in general, with heavy rainfall exceeding 50mm or more, expected in the mountainous areas. "Areas expecting the most rain are the western mountainous areas of the Western Cape which could receive up to 80-90mm throughout Wednesday. Rainfall should clear during Thursday morning‚" he said. He said the Western Cape will need "more than one" season of normal to above normal rainfall to get dam levels up to what they should be. Barnes said that the seasonal forecaster for the south-western Cape is "very uncertain for this winter" making it almost impossible to predict whether there would be normal rainfall. "Above normal‚ normal and below normal rainfall scenarios are all possible for this winter. Remember we also had a very dry autumn which doesn’t help‚" he said. Source - http://www.freshplaza.com

06.06.2017

USA - Planting challenges raise crop insurance concerns

With tens of thousands of acres of major crops not yet planted across Wisconsin because of excess moisture and cool temperatures during much of the spring, the planting deadlines for maintaining full coverage on crop insurance already having passed in some cases and are near for many others. A reminder on that point was issued by University of Wisconsin – Madison and Extension Service agricultural economist Paul Mitchell to alert farmers about those deadlines and about their obligation to keep their crop insurance agents informed about late and prevented plantings and any replantings. For full coverage on crop insurance, the final planting dates in Wisconsin's northern tiers of counties were May 25 for grain corn and May 31 for silage corn, Mitchell points out. In approximately the southern three fourths of the state, the respective deadlines were May 31 and June 5. For soybeans, the final planting dates are June 10 in most of the state and June 15 for two or three tiers of counties in the southern part of the state. Guarantees on crop insurance policies are reduced by 1 percent for every day that planting occurs after the respective final planting days. One exception is that small acreages do not trigger late or prevented planting provisions, Mitchell notes. At least 20 acres or 20 percent of the unit acreage coverage for the crop must be affected. In the case of prevented planting, farmers can obtain an indemnity payment of 60 percent of their crop insurance guarantee. Mitchell points out that they are allowed to grow a forage or cover crop, including the establishment of alfalfa, on those acres but the crop cannot be harvested or grazed until after November 1. Source - http://www.wisfarmer.com

06.06.2017

USA - Farm futures rely on strong crop insurance

In parts of Agweek country, conditions have been wet. So wet, in fact, that it's hard to get a crop in the ground. In other parts of Agweek country, conditions have been dry. So dry, in fact, that farmers are staring at the fields, hoping something green starts to come up. Agriculture holds no guarantees. Whether it's the weather or the prices, farmers and ranchers often are operating at the mercy of something they can't control. Consumers have a stake, too: a safe, stable and affordable food supply. That's what makes federal crop insurance so important. The Trump Administration has called for big changes to the federal crop insurance program in its first budget proposal. The proposal would put a $40,000 cap on crop insurance premium subsidies, would eliminate the harvest price option from the crop insurance program and limit eligibility for crop insurance and commodity support programs to farmers making less than $500,000 in adjusted gross income. Now, these changes would require Congressional action rather than just the stroke of a president's pen to enact. And they aren't likely to find much support in either the House or the Senate, as even some of President Donald Trump's most ardent supporters have come out against the proposals. For that matter, even Michael Young, director of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Office of Budget and Program Analysis, could not give a good reason for the proposed cuts during a call with reporters and made clear that Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue hadn't been in place long enough to help craft them. We urge members of Congress, who are starting the process of planning and writing a new farm bill, to keep the interests of farmers and ranchers in mind as they carry out their work. Yes, anything can be improved. And yes, maybe some cuts or refinement could be made. And we recognize that even some in agriculture have concerns about federal crop insurance. But making drastic cuts and large-scale changes to the way our farm safety net operates would be ill advised, particularly now in a time of low prices As lenders ponder whether to continue lending to farmers due to banking regulations, any weakening of the crop insurance program will give them another excuse to say no. Our nation relies on a domestic food supply. It's a national security matter and helps with our balance of trade. If we don't have farmers, we don't have food. And if we don't have food, we don't have much of anything. This budget proposal appears to be a slap in the face to the places that delivered the presidency to Trump. But, someone who's lived his life in the big city likely has no understanding of the way of life out here and how difficult it can be to overcome even one bad year. That's why it's so important to make sure our Congressional representatives and our farm groups are speaking up about this issue. Make your voices heard. We need a strong safety net to protect our nation's farms. Source - http://www.agweek.com

06.06.2017

USA - Crop insurance subsidies should be capped

Crop insurance is the current cornerstone of federal support for farms. As farmers and crop insurance customers, we support a strong farm safety net. But we also believe the crop insurance program can be improved. On average, the federal government currently pays 62 percent of farmers’ crop insurance bills, also called premiums. The government pays this support on every acre of insured farmland nationwide, without limit, at a cost of about $21.09 per acre. So, a farmer with 700 acres would benefit from $14,763 in subsidies, while a farmer with 7,000 acres would benefit from $147,630. The greatest benefit of crop insurance subsidies therefore goes to the largest — and sometimes wealthiest — farms. We take no issue with the desire of farmers and farming operations to grow larger, and we are not calling for a government cap on farm size. But we don’t think our government should continue giving greater support to large operations. When large farms have a competitive advantage, it encourages farm consolidation, which weakens rural communities: schools close, attendance at churches and other places of worship declines, businesses move out, and rural America suffers. In addition to giving greater support to large farms, the current system of crop insurance subsidies distorts land values. Mike Duffy, professor emeritus of economics at Iowa State University, published a report that shows how current crop insurance programs impact land costs and have a significant relationship to land prices and cash rental rates. For example, Duffy found that crop insurance subsidies may have increased Iowa land values by up to 10 percent in 2015. With corn prices falling faster than land prices, anything that drives land prices up works against farmers’ ability to access land. Finally, unlimited crop insurance subsidies are an irresponsible use of taxpayer dollars. Large farms should be able to buy crop insurance on every acre, but there should be limits to the amount of their bill that taxpayers are responsible for. Other subsidy programs have a payment limit. Why should crop insurance be different? We need farmers on the land. We want farmers who suffer a significant loss outside their control to be able to farm the next year. A federal crop insurance program can and should be there to protect farmers from the myriad risks of farming. While we may have differing views on some issues confronting rural and small town America, upon this issue we agree wholeheartedly. Public spending on crop insurance should provide a basic level of support to farmers, but it shouldn’t disproportionately benefit the largest farms. Instead, we need crop insurance to better support our small and mid-size farms. Crop insurance subsidies should be capped in order to stop government support for farm consolidation and the continued weakening of rural America. Source - http://www.wisfarmer.com

746
of 1173