17.02.2016

USA - Crop Insurance Support Among Farmers Nearly Unanimous

Almost every farmer who uses crop insurance supports the risk management tool and opposes legislative attempts to undermine it.  That’s according to a new study conducted by the Crop Insurance Professionals Association (CIPA), which was released at this week’s annual crop insurance convention. Crop insurance agents represented by CIPA delivered the survey to their customers, and more than 1,300 farmers, growing 20 different crops in 26 states, responded.  Among the results: 96 percent oppose funding cuts to crop insurance like the one recently proposed in the White House’s FY2017 budget request; 97 percent oppose reopening the 2014 Farm Bill to change crop insurance; 94 percent oppose the AFFIRM Act, a legislative proposal introduced last year to reduce crop insurance benefits and limit coverage options; 97 percent prefer that crop insurance be administered by the private sector instead of the government; 93 percent said their banks demand crop insurance coverage before extending needed operating capital; and 99 percent noted that current low commodity prices and extreme weather make crop insurance coverage a necessity. “It is clear that farmers depend on crop insurance and are willing to fight to defend a policy that helps them combat extreme weather and volatile markets,” said William Cole, an agent from Batesville, Mississippi and current chairman of CIPA.  “Farmers made their support very clear late last year when they rallied together to beat back attempts by some in Congress to erode the current system.” The survey also took on two vocal farm policy opponents that are working to undermine crop insurance.  The first is the Center for Rural Affairs, which recently produced a report card on crop insurance’s effectiveness and gave it a failing grade. CIPA asked farmers to grade crop insurance, and fewer than 1 percent agreed with the Center for Rural Affairs’ assessment.  Instead, nearly six in 10 respondents gave crop insurance an A and 36 percent selected a B. Next, the survey asked if it were appropriate for university professors to profit from designing crop insurance policies and then take money from farm policy opponents to criticize crop insurance.  Ninety-four percent of respondents said, “Making money being on both sides of an issue is a conflict of interest.”     Source - cipatoday.com

17.02.2016

India - Only 5% of farmers cultivating wheat, rice insured their crops

Only five per cent of households cultivating wheat and paddy have insured their crops, according to a report released by the ministry of statistics & programme implementation (MoSPI). By comparison, insurance coverage rates were higher among farmers cultivating groundnut, soyabean and cotton in the agricultural year July 2012-June 2013. The latest data comes against the backdrop of the central government embarking on a crop insurance schemes, which it hopes will cover 50 per cent of the farmers in two years. The report, based on the 70th round of the National Sample Survey carried out between January and December 2013, found that a majority of farmers were simply not aware of crop insurance. Knowledge about insurance and its benefits were, expectedly, lower in rural areas with lower levels of literacy. But despite knowing about the facility, 20 per cent of households were simply not interested in insuring their crops or did not feel the need to insure crops. Based on evidence collected, the report suggested: "Proper awareness, enhanced geographical coverage and simplification of procedures may positively affect the rate of crop insurance among the cultivating agricultural households in the country." The report affirmed the widely held view that among those households who insured their crops and experienced crop losses, only a small percentage received their claims. Further, most of the claims that were received were often delayed. According to the report, "More than 75 per cent of the agricultural households that had additionally insured their crops did not receive their insurance claim against the crop loss they experienced in respect of the crops harvested during the period July 2012- December 2012." For pulses such as urad, arhar and other crops like groundnut, cotton and soyabean, non-receipt of claims was almost 100 per cent. Source - business-standard.com

16.02.2016

India - Registers Increase in Food Grain Production

Agriculture still employs around 49 percent of India's employable population. However, the biggest problem with agriculture is that it has been growing at a very slow pace in recent times. During the year 2014-15 agriculture grew only at the rate of 1.1 percent. With an aim to give a boost to the agriculture sector Narendra Modi Government launched the ambitious Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana to achieve convergence of investments in irrigation at field level, expand cultivable area under assured irrigation. The plan with an outlay of Rs. 50,000 crore to be spend over a period of five year (2015-16 to 2019-20 was approved. To top it Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana was also launched so that farmers pay minimum premium and get maximum insurance. The previous insurance schemes for farmers were not successful as the premium rates were high and claim value was low. Also the schemes did not cover localised crop loss. The result was that less than 20 percent farmers only opted for insurance scheme. PM Modi assured the farmers that new scheme addressed all the issues that the farmers faced previously. Horticulture as Indian farming's bright spot: It will be right to say that horticulture is one area which is showing great improvement as production of fruits and vegetables overtook India's food grain production by 31 million tonnes in 2014-15. This was the third consecutive year that showed improvement in the production of fruits and vegetables. This increase has been made possible by the fact that eight vegetables that make up 74% of the total vegetable production in the country have 73% access to irrigation. Success in increasing food grain production: Good news for Modi government is that despite drought conditions India's food grain production for the year 2015-16 showed a marginal increase than the overall production in the year 2014-15. This year the food grain production was 253.16 million tonnes. It has been reported that wheat, rice, coarse cereals and pulses are part of the foodgrain basket. Wheat output is projected to go up by 8.42 per cent to 93.82 MT in 2015-16, from 86.53 MT in the previous year. Total pulses production of 17.33 mt during 2015-16 is marginally higher than the previous year's production of 17.15 mt. However, it should be noted that, estimated output this year is still 4.5% lower than the record production of 265 mt in 2013-14, a normal monsoon year. It has also been reported that, "This year, rainfall deficiency was 14 per cent". It was also reported that Agriculture Minister Radha Mohan Singh in an interview to PTI has said that, "Overall food grain output is likely to be better than last year despite deficit monsoon for two straight years. Since February-March is crucial for wheat crops, we hope there would be no unseasonal weather conditions like hailstorm that we witnessed last year". Procurement targets: The government has fixed the food grain procurement targets for the 2016-17 marketing year. For wheat, the procurement target is 30 million tonnes (MT) as against 28.08 MT in the current year. The target was set after meeting with officials from key wheat producing states like Punjab, Haryana, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan. The target for grain procurement both by the Food Corporation of India and state government owned agencies was fixed. Of the total, Punjab's target is 11 MT, followed by Haryana 6.5 MT, Madhya Pradesh 6.8 MT, Uttar Pradesh 3 MT and Rajasthan 1.8 MT. Many want 4 percent growth in agriculture: Many feel that Modi government should achieve at least 4 percent growth in agriculture on a sustainable basis despite the drought years. They feel that only then the farmer groups which were great supporters of the government will not feel that government has deserted them. Before evaluating the government on development in the agriculture sector it should be borne in mind that the present government had inherited the sector which was in very bad shape and the situation has been made worse by bad monsoons and low international commodity prices. However, only visionary can show path in adverse time and so has the government shown that despite all the adverse conditions the sector is showing some improvements. Source - oneindia.com

16.02.2016

USA - Crop insurance continues expansion while improper payment rate falls

The federal crop insurance program can celebrate several successes, but one of the biggest comes from reducing the improper payment rate by more than 50 percent, said Brandon Willis, administrator of USDA's Risk Management Agency(RMA). For 2015, Willis said the improper payment rate was 2.20 percent, down from 5.58 percent in 2014. USDA's improper payment rate was 5.02 percent in 2014 and the federal government's was 4.02 percent. “The spotlight on crop insurance will continue to grow, but this demonstrates crop insurance can withstand it,” Willis told attendees at the Crop Insurance Industry Annual Convention here. “This is a well-run program.” An improper payment occurs when funds go to the wrong recipient, the right recipient receives the incorrect amount of funds (including being paid too much or too little), documentation is not available to support a payment, or the recipient uses funds in an improper manner. Not all improper payments are the result of fraud, but on Capitol Hill, a high improper payment rate for any program usually generates additional scrutiny and criticism from lawmakers and budget analysts. For crop insurance, Willis said over 50 percent of the errors are related to acreage reporting and production records. Government-wide, improper payment estimates totaled $124.7 billion in fiscal year 2014, a significant increase of approximately $19 billion from the prior year's estimate of $105.8 billion, according to the Government Accountability Office. Willis told participants that “farmers always says how important crop insurance is because they know firsthand that, without crop insurance, they might not be able to stay in farming anymore.” And he encouraged the industry to work together “so that we can have a program that we're proud of, farmers are proud of….” In addition to talking about improper payments, Willis, along with Associate Administrator Tim Gannon and Tim Witt, deputy administrator for product management, shared several other success stories, including: --Market penetration: In 1990, RMA covered about 94 million acres of principal crops like corn, soybeans and wheat and cotton. But since then, more and more farmers have purchased crop insurance in 2014 this private/public partnership for risk management covered almost 220 million acres. The program has also expanded to new regions and new crops. Crop insurance coverage of fruits and nuts has increased from about 600,000 acres in 1990 to 3.1 million in 2014, covering 74 percent of the planted area. And vegetable coverage has more than doubled during that same time, from 441,000 acres to over 992,000. --Organic expansion: The number of organic price elections has grown from 4 crops in 2011 to 56 crops in 2016 and 2017. Willis said the “Contract Price Option” allows producers who receive a contract price for their crop to get a guarantee that is more reflective of the actual value of their crop and is available for 73 crop types.  The number of organic policies sold jumped from under 2,000 in 2005 to about 6,000 in 2014. --Whole farm Revenue Policies: Formerly known as Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR) or AGR-Lite, the program was modified as a result of the 2014 farm bill and several listening sessions that RMA held with growers. The number of policies sold increased from 791 in 2014 to 1,089 in 2015 and Willis said he expects another big bump in participation in 2016. --Conservation compliance. The 2014 farm bill required producers wishing to participate in the federal crop insurance program to be in compliance with conservation requirements. Willis said 98.2 percent of farmers have filed the necessary compliance paperwork. --Supplemental Coverage Option: SCO is an optional program, first available last year, which covers a portion of the insured's deductible using a county-level measure of yield or revenue for producers enrolling in the Price Loss Coverage (PLC) program. Producers must buy it as an endorsement to either the Yield Protection, Revenue Protection, or Revenue Protection with the Harvest Price Exclusion policies. In 2015, rice and wheat growers showed the highest interest in SCO, Willis said. Slightly over 22 percent of the insured rice acres and 6 percent of the insured wheat acres were covered by SCO last year. Fifty-eight crops now have SCO available. --Acreage crop reporting streamlining initiative (ACRSI): Aimed at making crop reporting easier and more consistent among USDA agencies, RMA rolled out a pilot program last year for nine crops in 15 states. Willis said that, for 2016, the initiative will expand to cover 13 crops in all 50 states. Source - agri-pulse.com

16.02.2016

Haiti - The country hit by the worst drought in 35 years

Since the beginning of 2015, Haiti faces the worst drought in the last 35 years, reports the National Coordination for Food Security (CNSA). The phenomenon "El Niño", which began in early 2015, one of the strongest ever recorded, could persist in 2016 and have an impact on food security in Haiti. This drought has resulted in considerable losses of crops and reduced availability of local food on markets, combined with a dramatic increase prices of these. Furthermore, significant water shortages were reported in the most affected departments (West, Central, South and Southeast). Agricultural losses amounted to over 50% (70% in some areas) compared to normal on the spring campaign of 2015, which represents nearly 60% of the annual production of the country. "If it does not rain before the 2016 harvest, it will mean that many farmers will lose their third consecutive harvest and can not meet the needs of their families," said Wendy Bigham, Deputy Director of the World Food Programme WFP in Haiti "We have to help them cover their immediate needs while helping them build their resilience. " According to CNSA, 3.6 million Haitians are currently in a situation of severe food insecurity and 200,000 (or 40,000 families) in extremely food emergency. With the persistence of El Niño, and if nothing is done by July 2016, food insecurity could affect about 5 million people (half of the Haitian population). In addition, for the 5 departments affected by drought, it is expected about 76,000 children suffering from acute malnutrition, including 37,500 with severe acute malnutrition. A situation that could worsen if the necessary measures are not taken in the short and long term. In response to this alarming situation, the CNSA has drawn up an emergency response plan for the fight against hunger and save the crop of spring 2016. An amount of 2 billion gourdes is necessary to meet the urgent needs among others of 40,000 families living in the 20 communes in situations of acute food insecurity and ensure the nutritional management of target groups in the affected areas. For its part, based on its new studies, WFP will intensify its emergency operation to meet the immediate needs of 1 million people in a situation of severe food insecurity by making money transfers as well as distributing food rations. These immediate distributions will be complemented by programs of "Money for Work", where 200,000 people will receive money in exchange for their work on water management projects or soil conservation set up to promote the development at long term. WFP has already implemented of projects "Working against money" for more than 30,000 people in the areas most affected by drought.

16.02.2016

USA - Enough Votes To Stop Crop Insurance Cut

This week, the Obama Administration rolled out a $4.1 trillion budget deal with an $18 billion cut to crop insurance. Some lawmakers were quick to voice disapproval of the plan. House Ag Chair Mike Conaway says it would be a sever blow to farmers. Pat Roberts, the Senate Ag Chair, calls the new budget an attack on risk management. Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley also voiced disapproval in a conference call, He says the budget as a whole usually gets no support and the individual issues in it will get looked at. But when it comes to crop insurance cuts, he points to the omnibus spending package last year, where they got cuts removed. Grassley says, "Legislators plus the White House want to take money out of crop insurance. We stopped that. So I think we've got the votes to stop it now. The second thing is, there's just kind of a rule about farm bills over the last 35 years. You spend a year or two writing a farm bill, it's a five year farm bill, you want farmers to have certainty so you don't open up a farm bill." According to the National Crop Insurance Services, producers pay a collective $4 billion every year for crop insurance. They say cutting it would make farming more expensive especially with low commodity prices. Source - whotv.com

16.02.2016

USA - What is the role of the private-sector crop insurance companies?

The private-sector crop insurance companies employ agents and loss adjusters who sell policies to farmers and determine the extent of losses, collect premiums and pay claims. The crop insurance companies also share in the underwriting gains and losses of the program.  In good years, the government collects a portion of the underwriting gains and in bad years the private sector absorbs a share of the losses, thus reducing taxpayer exposure. The companies employ more than 20,000 licensed agents, certified loss adjusters and company staff. Furthermore, companies invest heavily in technology, infrastructure efficiency, training programs and service improvements for farmers and ranchers. Beyond fulfilling their delivery and service obligations, insurers have contributed to improving the program by providing input and feedback on the implementation of ever-changing rules and policies. Farmers benefit from private-sector efficiency, which speeds payments when needed most, and taxpayers benefit from reduced overhead costs and strict procedures to combat waste, fraud and abuse. View a video on private sector efficiency here. For example, in 2011, farmers in Texas received $2.6 billion in indemnities due mostly to drought. Of this, more than $1.3 billion was paid by mid-September of that year. During the 2012 devastating drought, USDA Under Secretary Michael Scuse traveled across rural America and gave farmers his business cards with the instruction to call if there were any problems or concerns about crop insurance or the speed of assistance delivery. “I have yet to have a single producer call me with a complaint about crop insurance,” he said. “That is a testament to just how well agents, adjusters, the companies, and Risk Management Agency (RMA) worked together in one of the worst droughts in the history of this nation.” Source - cropinsuranceinamerica.org

16.02.2016

USA - Crop Insurers Celebrate Past Success, Set Sights on Future

Crop insurers and farmers have shouldered their share of challenges in recent years, ranging from an historic drought to lower-than-expected financial returns, legislative debates, and implementing a new Farm Bill. But Tim Weber, chairman of the American Association of Crop Insurers and National Crop Insurance Services, said today that those challenges have only strengthened crop insurance providers and better equipped them for the future. “I believe crop insurance is stronger today for the obstacles it has faced in recent years and most importantly, it is ready to meet tomorrow’s challenges,” he told colleagues at the industry’s annual conference. Weber, who is coming to the end of his term as chairman, used his remarks to reflect back on lessons learned during pivotal years within the industry – a time, he said, when teamwork and building alliances was emphasized. “Overall, I am very proud of what we have accomplished,” he said. “These accomplishments were the result of a hard-working, talented workforce that was willing to work together as [insurance providers], agents, adjusters, and industry allies to overcome attempts to weaken our farmers’ and ranchers’ most important risk management tool.” Weber noted that, despite crop insurance’s past successes and its popularity with farmers, agriculture’s opponents will continue to criticize the farm safety net. He pointed to the recent Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, which sought to cut $300 million a year from crop insurance, as proof of that criticism and how rural America must counter it. “Farmers from across the country came to our defense…as did the agent force, the lending community, input providers, Main Street businesses, the conservation world, and leading voices from academia,” he explained. “Notwithstanding this level of support…we would never have won this battle if not for the leadership of key lawmakers who were not bashful about standing up for agriculture.” Weber urged the group to remain vigilant moving forward by focusing on industry cooperation and collaboration with third-party allies. He also urged insurers to invest time and resources in the political process as a way to blunt future critiques. “We need all Members of Congress to hear directly from their constituents regarding the importance of maintaining an effective crop insurance program,” he concluded. “After all, every person in this country benefits from a dynamic, financially healthy agricultural industry. Not only does it provide a dependable supply of domestically grown food, fuel, and fiber, but it also supports economic and job growth.” Source - cropinsuranceinamerica.org/

15.02.2016

India - Awareness, technology key for successful implementation

The NDA government recently launched a new crop insurance scheme titled Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) to mitigate the rural distress caused by crop failure or damage due to factors like unseasonal rains, monsoon failure, storms, floods, pests and diseases. According to the Agriculture Census Report 2010-11, the number of operational holdings (all land which is used wholly or partly for agricultural production and is operated one technical unit by one person alone or with others without regard to the title, legal form, size or location) was 138.35 million of which wholly owned and self-operated holdings accounted for 97.61 per cent in 2011. The small and marginal holdings (below 2 hectare) constituted 85.01 per cent. The report says there are around 118.6 million cultivators in the country. The government aims to cover at least 50% of farmers with its crop insurance scheme. The present coverage is below 25%. Under the new scheme, a farmer has to pay a uniform premium of 2% of the total value (arrived at by factoring in MSP) for all Kharif crops, 1.5% of the value all Rabi crops and 5% on all commercial (cocoa, coffee, cotton, tea, tobacco) and horticultural crops. The balance amount towards the premium will be paid by the government. PMFBY is likely to cost the central government Rs 8,800 crore. State governments also have to contribute an equal amount for this scheme. In the Modified National Agricultural Insurance Scheme, the premium was in the range of 2-15% of the sum insured. The government provided a subsidy of 75% if the premium was above 15%. The insurance companies calculated the premium based on actuarial rate which for some crops were very high that went up to 40%. If the actuarial rate was higher than the capped rate, then the sum insured would come down accordingly. For example, let us consider that the sum insured for a crop is Rs 30,000 with premium capped at 11%. If the actuarial rate is 22% for the crop, then the sum insured will be reduced to Rs 15,000 under MNAIS. In PMFBY scheme there is no cap on the total value government will be contributing towards the subsidy. Even if balance premium is 90% it will be borne by the government. The removal of capping on premium is expected to encourage more farmers to join the scheme. The insurance companies providing the cover play an important role in executing the scheme and thereby its successful implementation. KG Krishnamoorthy Rao, MD & CEO, Future General India Insurance said, "scheme proposed seems to be good from the farmer's point of view since the premium payable from the farmer is likely to be reduced and the claim settlement process is made simpler. However we need to see the detailed rules about the scheme to understand it better." Anuj Tyagi, Member of Executive Management, Corporate & Rural Business and Reinsurance, HDFC ERGO also agreed that the scheme has a host of features which makes it a perfect solution tailor made to suit the needs of the Indian farmer. Most of the insurance companies feel that success of this program lies in increasing awareness amongst the farmers about this scheme. Ashish Agarwal, Head, Agri Business, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance said, "Only premium reduction would not help much in increasing coverage of farmers under the scheme. There is also an urgent need to launch campaigns to educate farmers and create awareness about the scheme among them." Krishnamoorthy Rao of Future General Insurance said that as the schemes are government run, the insurer has limited scope to spread awareness about this. However, Ms Kavitha Kuruganti, member of farmer rights activist group Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA), asserts that companies need to play a vital role in bringing about awareness among farmers on the scheme and its details. In an email response she said, "Insurance companies today hide behind the banks. The banks are the front-end transaction faces for crop insurance. Farmers are not even aware that premium is being deducted for insurance from their crop loan amount disbursals." The banks currently manage the process of enrolment of farmers on behalf of insurance companies. Farmers taking loans take insurance by default, but a majority of those who haven't taken loan from banks are not even aware of crop insurance scheme. Among the insured farmers only 10% of them haven't taken loan from banks. Insurance companies though differ with the view that there are a lot of constraints when it comes to crop insurance. Sources among insurance companies who prefer not to be named, said that lack of e-records on land is a big constraint for crop insurance. Only few states in India possess e-records for land owned by farmers. They believe if crop insurance is made mandatory, it may improve the coverage significantly. This is not the first crop insurance scheme. Various other schemes were launched on earlier occasions — Comprehensive Crop Insurance Scheme (CCIS) in 1985, National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (NAIS) in 1999 and Modified National Agricultural Insurance Scheme (MNAIS) in 2013. But these schemes were not able to bring in enough number of farmers under crop insurance due to high premium, lack of land records, low awareness and absence of coverage for localised crop damage. The Assessment of the damaged crops has also been a major bone of contention for farmers as well as insurers. The government has suggested using new age technologies such as remote sensing, drones for faster and accurate measurement of damages to crops. However, not everyone is convinced about it. Farmer activist Kuruganti says, "We think verification is certainly possible, but assessment still requires human interface since remote sensing has not evolved to an extent that it can captur village-wise details, for all crops notified as of now." Insurers though believe that with the wide reach of mobile phones and government's digital India push, technology can be adopted to overcome those challenges. Rao said, "We need to learn from some other countries where such technology is deployed." For the scheme to be truly beneficial to farmers the government needs to engage them at all the levels. The central government should urge state governments to expedite the collection of digital land records. The faster adoption of modern technologies to assess the damage will be crucial in implementing the scheme. Payment of premium to insurance companies by the government without delay would also ensure that money is disbursed to the farmers without hassle. Source - economictimes.indiatimes.com

15.02.2016

USA - Insurance options available to Illinois fruit producers

Some Illinois fruit producers will have another choice in crop insurance this year. The Risk Management Agency is offering the Supplemental Coverage Option to peach growers in four counties and apple growers in five. It is the first year for the provision, which came out of the 2014 farm bill. RMA executive Adrienne McTaggart brought producers up to date on the option during a fruit growers meeting here. “You have to get with an underlying policy. With peaches that would be an APH (Average Production History) policy,” she said. “SCO comes with a 65 percent premium subsidy on the SCO portion, regardless of the coverage level you choose.” It is available to growers in the state’s largest peach-producing counties: Union, Jackson, St. Clair and Calhoun. Apple growers in Union, Jackson, St. Clair, Calhoun and Jersey counties are eligible. Historical yields are based on numbers reported by producers and confirmed by authorities. “The producer would have to report their actual production,” McTaggart said. “There has to be at least four years there. If they don’t have the yields to make that up, we have to use county averages, and base their coverage on that.” McTaggart said she doesn’t have information on participation. Source - missourifarmertoday.com

15.02.2016

Australia - Great Ocean Road bushfire losses to top $150m

Figures on agricultural losses from major bushfires this fire season at Scotsburn, Barnawartha and Lancefield show that farms have suffered significant damage. Some farmers have lost thousands of dollars in equipment, livestock and future earnings. Almost 4700 livestock (mostly sheep) were killed, 590 kilometres of farm fences and 99 sheds were destroyed and seven hectares of orchard plantings or grapes burnt. The fires also burnt more than 4200 hectares of pasture and destroyed almost 450 tonnes of hay. Source - theage.com.au

15.02.2016

USA - Don’t let farm programs lapse

Staff at local Farm Service Agency offices have been busy enrolling producers in the 2016 Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC) or Price Loss Coverage (PLC) programs. This enrollment period will continue until Aug. 1. However, I encourage area producers to schedule appointments now to complete the paperwork before spring planting begins. When you call your FSA office, remember to inform the staff of any changes that may affect FSA farm records. That includes any changes to operators, owners and leasing agreements. The changes in a farm operation must be completed before the enrollment process. Conservation Reserve Program Two weeks remain in the general enrollment period for the Conservation Reserve Program. Feb. 26 is the deadline. Ag economist Michael Swanson has said, “On the average farm, regardless of location, 60 percent of the land on the farm will turn a profit, 20 percent of the farmland will break even and 20 percent of the farmland loses money.” With that and our current commodity market trends in mind, consider if CRP would be a good fit for your farming operation. Producers must visit their local FSA offices to submit CRP offers. More information is posted at www.fsa.usda.gov/crp. Compliance critical to eligibility Compliance with Highly Erodible Lands and Wetland Conservation provisions is necessary to maintain eligibility for federal farm programs and crop insurance subsidies. Conservation compliance refers to the USDA requirement that highly erodible lands be farmed in a manner that maintains a certain level of surface residue and minimizes soil erosion. This may include such steps as incorporating minimal or no-till methods, or planting cover crops. Conservation compliance also prohibits conversions of wetlands or planting an ag commodity on converted wetlands. Converting a wetland may include removing trees, installing a new drainage or modifying an existing drainage to an area. Producers should file Form AD-1026 with FSA prior to any land clearing or drainage-type projects to ensure the proposed actions meet compliance criteria. After the form is filed, Natural Resources Conservation Service staff will review the site to ensure the proposed work won’t put your eligibility for benefits at risk. Make sure this review is completed before starting a project. Livestock Indemnity Program The 2014 Farm Bill authorized the Livestock Indemnity Program to provide benefits to livestock producers with livestock deaths in excess of normal mortality because of adverse weather. An eligible weather event includes floods, blizzards, extreme heat and extreme cold. If you are a livestock producer who had animal deaths as a direct result of the Feb. 2 blizzard, contact your local FSA office to determine if you are eligible for this program. Source - kearneyhub.com

15.02.2016

India - Farmers to get Rs 12,000 per acre compensation

State Agiculture Minister Om Parkash Dhankar today said the BJP government had been taking steps for the implementation of the Swaminathan report. He was here to preside over a function of Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarathi Parishad (ABVP) in Jind engineering college. The government had been facing criticism from the state’s farming community over the delay in the implementation of the report. “There is a recommendation of Rs 10,000 per acre compensation for crop damage due to whiteflies and hailstorm in the report, but our government has decided to give Rs12,000. The Congress government had given Rs6,000,” said Dhankar. The minister said the government had released funds to the department concerned for cleaning canals and seasonal rivulets. He said, “We have prepared a plan to supply water to tail-end parts of the state. Special insurance scheme for milking animals has also been started,” he said. “In their 10-year rule in Haryana, the Congress did not work for the development and welfare of the weaker sections, but now it’s leaders are creating problems for us ,” said the minister. Invest in remunerative crops: Dhankar to farmers Bhiwani: Agriculture Minister OP Dhankar has reiterated the compensation for loss due to whitefly attack would soon be distributed to farmers. Speaking at the 'Jat Pratibha Samman Samaroh' organised to commemorate the birth anniversary of Sir Chhotu Ram here on Sunday, Dhankar said the state government was serious about the plight of farmers. Exhorting farmers to invest in remunerative crops, he said they should be aware of market trends and seek better price for their produce. On Jat reservation stir, he said everyone has the right to protest within the ambit of law. Expressing concern over alleged anti-national activities in Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi, he said the leaders of the opposition parties supporting anti-national elements should resign from their posts. Birender supports Swaminathan report  Panipat: Supporting the implementation of the recommendations of Swaminathan Commission, Union Minister Birender Singh on Saturday said, "I am in favour of these recommendations and will discuss the issue with Prime Minister Narendra Modi and party president Amit Shah." He gave a message of unity to farmers and urged them to leave their differences aside. They should work together for their cause. Singh was at Kisan Bhawan here to chair a function to commemorate the 135th birth anniversary of Sir Chhotu Ram. He said a gigantic statue would be installed of Sir Chhotu Ram on the premises of Kisan Bhawan. The minister said the Centre was serious about the plight of farmers and it had been working for their betterment. He lauded the efforts of farmers of Haryana and Punjab, due to whom both states had sufficient foodgrain. Source - tribuneindia.com

15.02.2016

USA - Farmdoc updates crop insurance tools

A revamped crop insurance section of the University of Illinois farmdoc website was released this past week, along with two new web-based decision tools. The iFarm Premium Calculator provides farmer-paid premiums for insurance products on a per-acre basis. The iFarm Insurance Evaluator provides performance evaluations of alternative crop insurance products for a case farm within a county. “As crop insurance decisions loom for farmers, we expect these two new online tools will help ease the process,” Gary Schnitkey, University of Illinois ag economist and a member of the farmdoc team, said in a university news release. The online tools were developed with the assistance of the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) at the University of Illinois. “Agricultural production is a risky business,” says Scott Wilkins, director of economic and societal impact at NCSA, who lives on his family’s farm. “My family faces a variety of price, yield and resource risks, which make our farm income unstable from year to year. I believe the crop insurance tool is a continuous improvement in the ongoing effort to make sure the data that sets the rates is relevant and stable for the insurance public. As a result, the farmer has better data to manage risks of their operation.” iFarm Premium Calculator This calculator allows users to develop highly customized estimates of their crop insurance premiums and compare revenue and yield guarantees across all available crop insurance products and elections for their actual farm case. It shows a comparison between farm-level and area-level insurance products in terms of cost and guarantee values. It also uses current price and volatility conditions and will track current market conditions through the final release by RMA of 2016 Projected Prices and Volatilities. This tool gives users a quick means to compare insurance premiums for all possible products and election levels in a format that is simple to interpret. iFarm Payment Evaluator This tool develops a case farm for most counties in the major corn and soybean regions and provides estimates of premiums for all available crop insurance products for basic and enterprise units by coverage level, along with the expected frequency of payments, average payment per acre, net cost per acre and risk reductions associated with alternative crop insurance products and election levels in an easily understood format. The tool uses current price and volatility estimates while providing helpful information to producers. Both calculators can be found online at www.farmdoc.illinois.edu/cropins. Source - iowafarmertoday.com

12.02.2016

USA - Obama Offers $18 Billion Fix To Bloated Crop Insurance Program

This week, President Obama released a 2017 fiscal year budget proposal that would save taxpayers more than $18 billion and better protect America’s land and water. The budget includes two reforms to the broken federal crop insurance program: Cutting overly generous premium subsidies by 10 percentage points for so-called revenue protection policies that guarantee farmers the projected price at planting time or the harvest price – whichever is higher. Lowering the large payouts growers receive through “prevented planting” coverage, which encourages farmers to plow up wetlands and plant on other risky and environmentally sensitive land. So what does this mean? The federal crop insurance program we have today is a far cry from the safety net most people expect. On average, America’s taxpayers subsidize 62 percent of growers’ premiums. Taxpayers also pay private insurance companies to sell and service the policies while at the same time picking up most of the cost of payouts when bad weather strikes. Reforming the Harvest Price Option People assume that crop insurance pays farmers when they experience losses due to unforeseen events like droughts, hail or insects. However, most crop insurance policies are revenue-based, not yield-based, meaning that farmers can insure themselves against revenue losses caused by low prices, low yields – or both. The best example of how far crop insurance has strayed from a safety net is the so-called revenue protection policies. These policies guarantee the projected price at planting time or the harvest price – whichever is higher. As a result these policies ask taxpayers to subsidize the risk growers face when they secure higher prices by selling crops before they are harvested. Because these policies are costlier than traditional revenue coverage, taxpayers more heavily subsidize them. That provides even greater incentives for farmers to choose this option. The President’s budget estimates that lowering the premium subsidies for harvest price coverage by 10 percentage points would decrease the number of growers choosing this more expensive coverage option, reduce the number of high-indemnity payouts and save taxpayers $16.9 billion over 10 years. Reforming “Prevented Planting” Coverage Crop insurance policies also cover growers when they can’t plant a crop because of extreme weather or other factors. EWG analysis has shown that in some parts of the country, such as the Prairie Pothole Region of the northern Great Plains, prevented planting coverage works more like an income support program than an insurance program. The reason is simple. In regions of the country where shallow wetlands are interspersed with cropland and grassland, excessive moisture during certain parts of the year is the norm, not the exception. As a result, this type of insurance encourages farmers to plow up wetlands or plant on other risky and environmentally sensitive land in order to receive payouts. Between 2000 and 2013, the 195 counties in the Prairie Pothole Region generated nearly $5 billion in prevented planting payouts – 61 percent of all prevented planting payouts nationwide. Despite the Department of Agriculture’s attempts to tighten controls over prevented planting payouts, a 2013 report by the Inspector General’s office found that USDA’s Risk Management Agency was creating incentives for growers to buy prevented planting coverage through excessive payments and high coverage levels. Lowering the large payouts that growers collect through prevented planting insurance, as the Obama Administration has proposed, would be a much-needed first step. For other proposals to reform the program, read EWG’s “Boondoggle” report. Generating Real Savings  The modest reforms put forth in President Obama’s 2017 budget proposals would be important first steps toward more fundamental reform of the broken crop insurance system. Overhauling the program would keep a fiscally and environmentally responsible safety net in place while saving billions of dollars that could be invested instead in programs to promote healthy diets and protect the environment. Source - ewg.org

12.02.2016

USA - Buy Crop Insurance, Double Your Money

Deep in the heart of the arcane laws that give farmers a helping hand, there's something called "crop insurance." It's a huge program, costing taxpayers anywhere from $5 billion to $10 billion each year. It's called an insurance program, and it looks like insurance. Farmers buy policies from private companies and pay premiums (which are cheap because of government subsidies) to insure themselves against crop failures and falling prices. It's mainly used by corn, soybean, cotton and wheat farmers. Defenders of the program call it a safety net. But according to Bruce Babcock, an economist at Iowa State University who's also a long-time critic of this program, it's far more generous than a safety net — and really, it's not insurance at all. Normal insurance is something that you buy while hoping that you'll never use it. Crop "insurance," Babcock says, is really a lottery: You play because you hope to win. Farmers do win. A lot, in fact. And in this casino game, the house — meaning you, the taxpayer — loses every year. Here are the numbers, which Babcock just released in a new report for the Environmental Working Group. For every $1 that farmers spent on crop insurance premiums over the past 15 years, they got more than twice that much back in payouts. Even more startling is the disparity across different regions of the country. In the Corn Belt states of Indiana and Illinois, the program was not nearly as profitable for farmers. Soybean farmers in Illinois, for instance, got only 12 percent more money back than they paid into the program. But in the South and the Great Plains, it was a different story. Cotton farmers in Texas, and corn farmers in Arkansas, got more than $3 back for every $1 that they paid into the program from 2000 to 2014. [caption id="" align="alignnone" width="1600"] Combines harvest a corn field in Grand Island, Neb. Nati Harnik/AP[/caption] Perhaps, Babcock says, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is setting insurance premiums too high in the Corn Belt and far too low in places where risks are actually higher, like the Great Plains. Babcock, whose academic specialty is risk management in agriculture, actually likes true insurance policies. In fact, he designed many of the insurance policies that farmers now purchase. His problem is with the generous subsidies that the government gives farmers to make these purchases, which he says are a waste of the public's money. He's been pushing an alternative. Under the Babcock plan, the government would give each farmer a grant that he or she could use to buy insurance. That grant would be enough to pay for catastrophic coverage on crops: It would pay farmers if their revenues were less than, say, 65 percent of an average year. But farmers would have to buy private insurance, with no government subsidy, for anything beyond that. Right now, the government pays part of the insurance premium for policies that cover up to 85 percent of a farm's expected revenue. The insurance covers not just crop losses, due to things like bad weather, but also losses due to falling corn or soybean prices. Babcock thinks this plan would cost taxpayers less than half what they currently are paying — perhaps $3 billion each year. But it would be a true safety net, not a lottery that farmers expect to win. Source - npr.org