-------------------------------------------------------- 
    THE BridgeNews FORUM: A series of viewpoints on farming, 
    farm policy and related agricultural issues. 
    -------------------------------------------------------- 
  
  * Washington Maintains A Double Standard On Farm Supports 
  
  
    By David Walker, agricultural economist 
    Bridge News 
    NORWICH, England--The contrast between the messages of British 
Agriculture Minister Nick Brown and US Under Secretary of Agriculture August 
Schumacher to the recent Oxford Farming Conference was very striking, and 
equally depressing for the predominantly British farm audience. 
  
    While Schumacher spoke of further emergency aid in the political pipeline 
for US farmers, Brown related his plans for redirecting current funding from 
farm support to rural development programs. 
  
    To put the two messages into context, it is useful to compare the state 
of agriculture in the two farm economies. 
  
    Last year appears to have been at least a reasonable one for American 
farmers. Net farm income, at $48.1 billion, was 105 percent of the 10-year US 
average for the 1990s. In contrast, Britain's total income from farming, 
equivalent to the American measure of farm income, was 2.25 billion pounds 
($3.71 billion), 47 percent of the 10-year average. The previous year it had 
also been less than half the 10-year average. 
  
    Looking forward to the current year, US net farm income is projected to 
fall to $40.4 billion, 88 percent of the 10-year average. Most of the decline 
is based on a planned cut in farm assistance of $5.5 billion, to $17.2 
billion. A cut of this size in a presidential election year, however, appears 
from this side of the Atlantic to be politically ambitious. 
  
    British farmers face a very different prospect. Under the European 
Union's Agenda 2000 proposals, market support for most commodities is being 
reduced significantly over the next two years. For grain, the cut will be 15 
percent, with only about half of this offset by increases in decoupled 
acreage payments. The situation for livestock producers, if anything, looks 
even grimmer. 
  
    But what is probably more frustrating to British farmers is their 
government's response to what even it agrees has been the most difficult time 
for farmers in more than 60 years. 
  
    Assistance announced on the eve of the annual September Labor Party 
conference, at which British farmers were planning demonstrations, totaled 
150 million pounds in new money rather than the 500 million pounds widely 
reported by the press at the time. It included 60 million pounds for a 
one-year extension of a hill farm program, an 89 million-pound waiver of a 7 
pound-per-head fee for cattle passports and certain inspection fees, and 1 
million pounds for marketing support. 
  
    If this was not bad enough, Brown announced in early December plans to 
switch farm spending ''from production aids to support for the broader rural 
economy.'' Over seven years, 1.6 billion pounds is to be spent, with part of 
the funds being diverted from income support to what seem to be mainly 
environmental programs. 
  
     The British farmer can surely be excused for being envious of his 
American counterparts. The reality is that American agriculture is riding the 
downturn in commodity markets not through any agricultural skills but through 
its ability to pull the right strings in Washington. 
  
    Britain's Labor government represents an urban constituency. That its 
agriculture minister has no farm or rural background illustrates this. Its 
priorities for agriculture stretch to food safety and the environment. Even 
the continued existence of a Ministry of Agriculture is rumored to be in 
doubt. 
  
    Equally, the British farmer can probably be forgiven for questioning the 
American government's commitment to trade liberalization. He is told by his 
agriculture minister that no meaningful help is possible because of Europe's 
commitments to the World Trade Organization, among other things. 
  
     Yet he sees US agriculture living high on the hog through the largesse 

of a government that is even at the same time demanding Europe give further 
ground. The advocacy of decoupled, green-box,  non-trade distorting  

programs, as opposed to the good, old-fashioned market support programs  

practiced to farmers' advantage in Europe for so long, sound like so much 
hypocrisy to the British farmer. And almost certainly to most farmers in the 
other 14 states of the European Union. 
  
    The Agenda 2000 program for reform of the EU's Common Agricultural 
Policy, developed over more than two years and approved in March 1999, was 
designed to be something of a line in the sand for the current WTO round. The 
political reality is that it will require a turn in the tide of farm 
commodity markets to wash out that line. 
  
    There are, therefore, probably two options for the farm trade 
liberalizers of the world. Take what is offered now and no doubt come back 
for more later. Or wait for the tide to turn.   End 
  
    DAVID WALKER, an agricultural economist, lives on his family's farm 
outside Norwich, England. He recently served as senior economist in London 
for the Home-Grown Cereals Authority and previously was executive director of 
the Alberta Grain Commission in Canada. His views are not necessarily those 
of Bridge News, whose ventures include the Internet site http://www.bridge.com/. 
  
    OPINION ARTICLES and letters to the editor are welcome. Send submissions 
to Sally Heinemann, editorial director, Bridge News, 3 World Financial 
Center, 200 Vesey St., 28th Floor, New York, N.Y. 10281-1009. You may also 
call (212) 372-7510, fax (212) 372-2707 or send e-mail to opinion@bridge.com. 
  
    EDITORS: A color photo of the author is available from KRT Photo Service. 
  
 [Begin BridgeLinks] 
  
    A COMPLETE SUMMARY of recent opinion articles is available on 
BridgeStation. (Story .5400) 
  
[SLUG: FARMING-US-UK:BN _ op-ed] 
 [End BridgeLinks]