Hátt matarverð, verndarstefna og heimsendaspár

Það hefur mikið verið rætt um yfirvofandi matvælaskort, fæðuóeirðir og hækkandi matvælaverð.  En eins og ég hef sagt áður má segja að landbúnaður víða um heim hafi verið rekinn í "bakkgír" undanfarin ár, bændum viða um heim hefur verið greitt fyrir að framleiða ekki. 

Fjárfestingar í landbúnaði hafa sömuleiðis verið í algeru lágmarki víðast hvar.  Þetta er nú að breytast og það hratt.  Hátt verð á kornmeti og annarri hrávöru hvetur bændur til að taka aftur í notkun land sem hefur verið látið eiga sig í mörg ár.  Fjárfesting eykst víða um heim, ekki síst í A-Evrópu.  Þar hafa til dæmis Þýskir aðilar verið að fjárfesta.

En það eru ekki síst Bandarískir bændur sem eiga mikið inni í landbúnaðarframeiðslunni, enda hefur þeim ekki hvað síst verið greitt fyrir að framleiða ekki.  Ég held því að heimsendaspár séu full fljótt á ferðinni.  Vissulega mun ríkja ójafnvægi á markaðnum einhvern tíma, en heimurinn á gríðarlega vannýtta möguleika í matvælaframleiðslu.

Framleiðsla og verð mun leita að jafnvægi.  En eftir því sem inngrip hins opinbera (niðurgreiðslur til eldsneytisframleiðslu o.s.frv) verða meiri, því meiri verða sveiflurnar og því meira getur hert að matvælaframleiðslu.

En í dag rakst ég á grein á vef NYT sem fjallar einmitt um þetta.

Hér að neðan eru nokkrir kaflar úr greininni:

"Thousands of farmers are taking their fields out of the government’s biggest conservation program, which pays them not to cultivate. They are spurning guaranteed annual payments for a chance to cash in on the boom in wheat, soybeans, corn and other crops. Last fall, they took back as many acres as are in Rhode Island and Delaware combined.

Environmental and hunting groups are warning that years of progress could soon be lost, particularly with the native prairie in the Upper Midwest. But a broad coalition of baking, poultry, snack food, ethanol and livestock groups say bigger harvests are a more important priority than habitats for waterfowl and other wildlife. They want the government to ease restrictions on the preserved land, which would encourage many more farmers to think beyond conservation.

Kerry Dockter, a rancher in Denhoff, N.D., has about 450 acres of grassland in the program. “When this program first came about, it was a pretty good thing,” he said. “But times have definitely changed.”

The government payments, Mr. Dockter said, “aren’t even comparable anymore” to what he could make by working the land. He plans to devote some of his conservation acres to growing feed for his cows and some to grazing. He might also lease some land to neighbors.

For years, the problem with cropland was that there was too much of it, which kept food prices low to the benefit of consumers and the detriment of farmers.

Now, because of a growing global middle class as well as federal mandates to turn large amounts of corn into ethanol-based fuel, food prices are beginning to jump. Cropland is suddenly in heavy demand, a situation that is fraying old alliances, inspiring new ones and putting pressure on the Agriculture Department, which is being lobbied directly by all sides without managing to satisfy any of them.

Born nearly 25 years ago in an era of abundance, the Conservation Reserve Program is having a rough transition to the age of scarcity. Its 35 million acres — about 8 percent of the cropland in the country — are the big prize in this brawl."

"While few urban dwellers ever heard of Conservation Reserve, it found support among two important constituents: hunters had more land to roam and more wildlife to seek out, with the Agriculture Department estimating that the duck population alone rose by two million; and environmentalists were pleased, too. No one disputes that there are real environmental benefits from the program, especially on land most prone to erosion.

The program peaked late last summer, with more than 400,000 farmers receiving nearly $1.8 billion for idling 36.8 million acres. Put all that land together and it would be bigger than the state of New York.

The group doing the most to undermine this amiable coexistence is the farmers themselves. Last fall, when five million acres in Conservation Reserve came up for renewal, only half of them were re-entered. While the program has gained some high-priority land in the last few months, in part from an initiative to restore bobwhite quail habitats, the net loss is still more than two million acres."

"Ardell Magnusson, a farmer in Roseau, Minn., shows the changing mood. He said the program was “a godsend” when he put 300 of his 2,300 acres into it eight years ago. “I needed some guaranteed income or my banker was going to tell me to find another occupation,” Mr. Magnusson said. It is not exactly a bonanza: he gets about $12,000 a year.

He calculates he can make more than that by farming sunflowers or wheat or soybeans. When his contract expires in two years, he plans to withdraw about half his land. It would not be a shock if the Agriculture Department cut him loose sooner. “Another nine months of wheat at today’s prices and there will be political pressure on this program like you wouldn’t believe,” Mr. Magnusson said.

That pressure is exactly what the bakers and their allies are aiming for, saying the Conservation Reserve costs taxpayers and hurts consumers.

“This program is taking money out of your pocket twice a day,” said Jay Truitt, vice president for government affairs for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. “Do you think it’s right for you to pay so there’s more quail in Kansas?”

The cattlemen and bakers argue that farmers should immediately be allowed to take as much as nine million acres out of the Conservation Reserve without paying a penalty, something they say would not harm the environment. "