|
|
|
|
Conservation Security Program Narrowed
The most promising conservation program of the new Farm Bill unnecessarily limited
The Conservation Security Program has become USDA’s most recent victim. CSP was designed by Congress to provide meaningful stewardship incentives nationwide. Instead, USDA is turning it into a program that leaves out the farmers and ranchers it was designed to recognize.
The 2002 Farm Bill required USDA to implement the new Conservation Security Program by February 2003. Instead, the Administration has used a series of delaying tactics.
The final proposed rule was released in January 2004 with a public comment period ending in March. Over 14,000 public comments (by far the most ever received on a conservation rule) overwhelming criticized the Administration’s proposal and called for dramatic changes. |
|
Farewell Joy
Joy Johnson recently left the Center for Rural Affairs to join the Ho Chunk Community Development team in Winnebago, Neb. as a developer and grant administrator. This is a
great step for Joy, and all of us at the Center wish her well.
Joy’s innovative and creative approach with Heifer International during the past three years has given beginning farmers and ranchers a new opportunity and hope for the future. Her work with Land Link and the hotline will always be remembered. We will miss you, Joy.
New Communications Director
The Center has another new face on its leadership team. Russ Gifford has become our new Communications and Development Director.
Russ lives in South Sioux City, Nebraska where he previously served on the City Council. He was a self-employed trainer on topics ranging from e-commerce and marketing to fundraising and building effective boards.
Over the last 20 years, the Center has been the leading source of ideas for revitalizing agricultural communities. Russ will lead our efforts to become the nation’s most powerful voice for Rural America over the next 20 years.
Wal-Mart Study Link
Last month we ran an article on a Congressional study reporting that each
Wal-Mart costs federal taxpayers over $2,000 per employee to supplement
low-wage levels. The report can be accessed at: http://edworkforce.house.
gov/democrats |
In the meantime, Congress enacted two changes to CSP funding. It removed a funding cap placed on the program in 2003 and restored the program to full funding status for fiscal year 2005 and beyond. Then, given the Administration’s snail-paced approach to implementation, Congress limited funding for CSP to $41 million, but only in fiscal year 2004.
Despite the fact CSP will return to a conservation entitlement program this October and the massive number of public comments disagreeing with their approach, USDA continues to show complete disregard for the law as evidenced in their May 4 announcement.
This announcement provided details about watershed selection and other criteria they will use to distribute funds to farmers and ranchers. Their approach sets out a two-tiered process to drastically limit eligibility. Only farms in 18 “priority watersheds” and only some “categories” of farmers within those watersheds will be allowed to participate in the sign-up.
It is obvious USDA is advocating for a budget cap on CSP by constructing a process that seeks to limit participation. This approach runs counter to the philosophy USDA has been espousing –
Reward the Best and Motivate the Rest. The Administration is violating the letter of the law and attempting to rewrite the 2002 Farm Bill.
View the selected watersheds map at: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/csp/watersheds04.html
The Center for Rural Affairs will operate a CSP Hotline to help farmers and ranchers sign up for the program – be watching for more details. Also look for a feature-length article on CSP in the July newsletter.
Contact: Traci Bruckner, 402.687.2100 ext.1016 or
tracib@cfra.org.
Corporate Tax Avoidance Rising
The Wall Street Journal reports large corporations increasingly adept at dodging federal taxes
According to a recent report from the Government Accounting Office, more than 60 percent of U.S. corporations did not pay any federal taxes from 1996 through 2000, a time when the economy boomed and corporate profits skyrocketed.
Corporate tax receipts shrunk drastically as a share of overall federal revenue in recent years and were particularly depressed when the economy went south. By 2003, they had fallen to just 7.4 percent of overall federal receipts, the lowest rate since 1983 and the second-lowest rate since 1934.
The GAO analysis comes as tax avoidance by U.S. and foreign companies draws increased scrutiny from the IRS and Congress. Dodging taxes, legally and otherwise, has become deeply rooted in corporate culture. About 70 percent of foreign-owned companies doing business here reported owing no U.S. federal taxes in the late 1990s.
The basic federal corporate-tax rate for big corporations is 35 percent. But credits and loopholes allow companies to pay far less.
Despite the rising rate of tax avoidance among corporations, collections from the federal corporate income tax rose to more than $200 billion in 2000, from $171 billion in 1996. But over the next three years they fell each year, reaching $141.8 billion in 2003 – the lowest annual total since 1993.
Contact: Chuck Hayes, 402.687.2100, ext. 1014 or
chuckch@cfra.org.
Family Farm Definition
Expanded
USDA proposes adding $750,000 limit on gross sales to the family farm definition
The Sustainable Agriculture Coalition has urged the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish strong standards to target its farm ownership and operating loans to family-size farms only. The Center for Rural Affairs is a member of the Coalition.
The Coalition wrote in support of USDA’s proposal to make loans only to farms with under $750,000 gross sales. It also urged the department to limit its lending to farms on which hired labor is used only to supplement family labor (not as the primary source of labor) and to farms where the family owning the farm makes the management decisions.
USDA has long had a policy of making loans only to family-size farms. It has largely based the determination of family farms on whether the farm family provides most of the labor and all of the management. However, that standard has been inconsistently applied in recent years.
USDA is proposing the addition of the gross sales to bring greater consistency and objectivity to the family farm definition. It is proposed as an addition rather than a replacement to the labor and management requirements in use now.
Consumers Favor Family Farms
Another national consumer poll shows strong support for food raised by family farms
For safe and nutritious food, Americans place more trust in small family farms than in large industrial farms, according to a national consumer opinion poll conducted by Roper Public Affairs.
The poll was conducted on behalf of Organic Valley Family of Farms, the largest and only independent national organic farmers’ cooperative. You can find the survey report at
http://www.organicvalley.coop
More than 8-in-10 consumers say they trust smaller-scale family farms to produce safe, nutritious food. Almost twice as many place a lot of trust in small family farms compared to large industrial farms.
Nearly 7-in-10 say small family farms are more likely than large industrial farms to use techniques that won’t harm the environment. Two-thirds say they would pay more for foods produced without chemicals such as pesticides, antibiotics, and hormones. Over half say they would pay more for food produced with humane treatment of animals.
Perhaps most significant, the poll indicates over 8-in-10 say they are at least somewhat concerned with the decline in the number of American farms, and nearly half are very concerned.
American consumers want and support family farms! Family farmers can earn premium prices by building new cooperatives to sell those consumers food produced in ways they support.
New Tax Incentive for Small Rural Businesses
Small businesses could receive tax savings of $5,000 per year under tax bill proposal now in Congress
The tax bill just passed in the United States Senate includes a tax credit for starting and growing small business in rural counties losing population.
The Jumpstart Our Business Strength Act (S 1637) would provide a 30 percent tax credit for money invested in starting or expanding an owner-operated business with five or fewer employees. Small businesses could receive tax savings of up to $5,000 per year and $25,000 over their lifetime.
But there are limitations on the credit. Each state would have authority to allocate $185,000 of tax credits for each county that lost at least 10 percent of its population over the last 20 years.
Unfortunately, only 10 percent of that amount can be used for small business credits. The rest must go to spur construction or rehabilitation of buildings.
The bill now goes to the House of Representatives, where we are working to include the provision but with the majority of credits allocated to small business rather than buildings. The most effective and desirable economic development strategy for most agricultural communities is small entrepreneurship – development based on locally-owned, owner-operated small businesses.
The idea for the small business tax credit was taken from the New Homestead Act, co-sponsored by Senators Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and 15 others. The provision was placed in the tax bill by Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Max Baucus (D-MT). The Center for Rural Affairs originally developed the small business tax credit proposal.
Bridging Community Resources together in Rural Small Towns
A northeast Nebraska county uses leadership training to build a common vision and action plan
Last month’s article Why Rural Communities Differ explored the concept of bridging and bonding and how it affects small rural communities. It is not uncommon for small communities to have strong bonding capacity but seem highly isolated from the outside world. Creating the bridge in those communities becomes the objective in community development.
The Center’s rural community revitalization effort, known as Project HOPE, began in Cedar County Nebraska. Through assessments and interviews, we found the bonding capacity, particularly in the community of Hartington, to be strong.
Other pockets of bonding were evident in Randolph, Laurel, Bow Valley, Coleridge, Wynot, and St. James. People were genuine and took care of the community in terms of being neighbors. What was missing were some of the links to be able to bridge resources.
In Hartington, Project HOPE began a leadership process to bring groups together. Prior to our involvement, the Chamber of Commerce, the Economic Development groups, and the city had never come together for a comprehensive visioning session.
Around the same time, a new group was formed in the community called the CORE group. It was made up of citizens who really had no formal power. In 2003 a unique retreat brought all of these groups together for a weekend to begin a visioning process and a plan of action for Hartington.
The retreat broke down barriers between groups and began a new collaborative approach to community development. This spring the groups met again to re-explore Hartington’s future and review their accomplishments. Their ability to accomplish goals and projects was accentuated by bridging community resources together.
Another bridging technique Project HOPE brought to the Cedar County region in northeast Nebraska was creation of a special telephone directory. The directory listed entrepreneurial and home-based businesses throughout the county at no charge.
Over 750 small and home-based businesses contributed to the directory and allowed a bridge to be formed for all of Cedar County to use.
Contact: Michael L. Holton,
michaellh@cfra.org or 402.687.2100 x
1015 for more information.
Corporate Farming Notes
Courts rule against Tyson jury, are silent on Amendment E, reveal bankruptcy in Neb.
On April 23, U.S. District Judge Lyle Strom overturned the jury’s $1.28 billion verdict against Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.
Judge Strom left intact these findings: 1) captive supplies harmed all cash sellers of fed cattle to Tyson in the amount of nearly $1.3 billion, and 2) cattle quality was lower with captive supply cattle and higher with spot market cattle. However, the Court found legitimate business reasons for captive supply and, therefore, did find it in violation of the law.
The plaintiff’s argument, that when damage caused by captive supply looms larger than any benefits being claimed, the court should rule the practice unlawful, fell on deaf ears. The Court instead sided with the defendants, who argued that even if the harm was severe, if there is any benefit at all, the law was not broken.
The plaintiffs have filed an appeal in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, where this decision will hopefully be reversed to ensure open and competitive markets free from abuses in market power.
On May 3 the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear oral arguments on Amendment E, South Dakota’s anti-corporate farming law, which was ruled unconstitutional by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court issued their decision without comment.
Some legal issues surrounding Amendment E remain unanswered, as the 8th Circuit has two contrary rulings regarding corporate farming laws and the Commerce Clause. In 2001, it upheld Missouri’s law, ruling that a Missouri livestock price reporting law could not be ruled unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. In 2003, it ruled that Amendment E violated the Commerce Clause.
Nebraska’s largest and typically most controversial pork producer has filed for Chapter 11 reorganization.
Filings in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nebraska show Furnas County Farms owes approximately $172 million to creditors nationwide, including some in Nebraska and Iowa. The largest creditor in Nebraska is First National Bank of Omaha with $19,313,987 owed.
Contact: Traci Bruckner, tracib@cfra.org
or 402.687.2100, extension 1016.
|
|
Feature
articles:
Public Interest Plant and Animal Breeding at Risk
- Are your rights to breed animals for better health or to breed crops for local soil and weather conditions at risk?
- What about public access to plant germplasm and genetic material from animals?
- Can the building blocks of life – or germplasm – be owned by private companies, and how does that impact my operation?
These questions and concerns are growing as fewer public breeding investments are made outside of major crop and animal breeding programs geared toward a corporate agriculture production model.
Allowing patents on bacteria and seeds and the possibility of patenting of other life forms raises ethical and moral questions. It also raises questions related to increasing consolidation in agriculture. How family farmers and ranchers are treated in such a legal and regulatory regime will go a long way in determining their future.
There is a complicated and long story behind this trend, but the brief summary lies in three major factors:
- Public investment in agricultural land-grant universities and USDA research programs has declined, combined with reduced training of new researchers who specialize in classical and applied breeding for major and minor crops and livestock.
- Passage of laws in the 1980’s (the Bayh-Dole Act for one) that allow publicly-funded research and results to be sold to private companies for royalties have paved the way for public institutions to go “where the money is” and seek out royalty earning research rather than research to serve the needs of farmers or ranchers.
- Acceleration of the amount of germplasm held privately rather than in the public domain as companies devote additional resources to patent potentially lucrative plant and animal genetic material.
The Facts
According to a survey by the Association of University Technology Managers, U.S. research universities earned over $446 million in royalties from inventions in fiscal year 1997, an increase of 33 percent from 1996. Since 1980, over 2,000 new companies were launched based on new innovations first licensed through an academic institution. In addition, private industry now accounts for roughly two-thirds of national research and development investment in the U.S.
On December 10, 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc., a case that dealt with questions concerning the patenting of plants and seed. The Supreme Court held for the general assertion that all life forms are patentable under current U.S. law.
If livestock patents become the norm, producers might be forced to pay a fee for every offspring produced with the patented genes or pay for the ability to have patented livestock produce offspring. Under such a scenario, a farmer could own a cow that could not be bred without paying the fees.
If the fees were not paid, the farmer would risk being sued for patent infringement. In such a scenario, the ramifications for independent livestock production and ownership and control over on-farm breeding improvements conducted by farmers and ranchers are enormous.
At this time there is no law that bars livestock germplasm from being patented, and in fact there are hundreds of patents now on animals (mice and pigs) and livestock. More recently, Congress has considered but not enacted legislation to protect farmer and rancher rights in relation to genetically engineered crops and livestock (House Resolution, HR 2918 Sponsored by Representative, Dennis Kucinich, D, 10th Congressional District, Ohio).
In confronting the public/private research issue, we must open the discussion on what needs to be done to ensure that farmers, ranchers and public researchers maintain reasonable control and access to animal and plant
germplasm.
Taking Action
Below are several actions that a coalition of groups including the Center for Rural Affairs is taking to help balance the research and breeding agenda:
- Redirect and prioritize resources within USDA programs to include public plant and animal breeding research for small and mid-size family farmers and ranchers.
- Increase federal funds expressly for the purpose of educating and training public plant and animal breeders.
- Perform a cost-benefit analysis on the Bayh-Dole Act’s impact on universities and public breeding programs. Evaluate its effect on public access to germplasm and research results and on the scope of public breeding for “minor” crop and livestock species.
Contact: Kim Leval, kimleval@qwest.net
or 541.687.1490, for more information or to be included on a “seeds and breeds” email
update. For more background see our
Life Form Patenting and Family Scale Agriculture Issue Brief
Small Business Employment Crucial to Rural Areas
A Center for Rural Affairs analysis of federal employment and business data compiled by the Association for Enterprise Opportunity (AEO) shows that small business employment is important for all of Nebraska, but most important to the most rural parts of the state.
Using a methodology developed by Professors James C. McConnon and Thomas Allen of the University of Maine, AEO compiled “Micro-enterprise Employment Statistics” for each state employing 2001 U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Department of Commerce data (the most recent data available) to determine what percentage of private non-farm employment in a state or county is from businesses with five employees or less.
Using AEO’s data, we determined what types of counties in Nebraska had the greatest dependence on small business employment. We used the county typology we employed in other Center research reports (the number in parentheses is the number of Nebraska counties in each type):
- Rural Farm Counties (50): 20 percent or more of county income from agriculture and no town of 2,500
- Urban Farm Counties (10): 20 percent or more of county income from agriculture and a town of 2,500 to 19,999
- Nonfarm Counties (25): Less than 20 percent of county income from agriculture, but not a metropolitan county
- Metropolitan (8): Part of a Census Bureau designated Metropolitan Statistical Area
Small business employment is a crucial part of the economy throughout Nebraska, comprising nearly 1 of every 6 private non-farm jobs in the state. As the table
below shows, all rural classes of counties have small business employment rates more than double the state’s Metropolitan counties.
| County Type |
Small Business Employment (%) |
| Nebraska (total statewide) |
15.9 |
| Rural Farm |
29.6 |
| Urban Farm |
26.9 |
| Ag-Based (Rural & Urban Farm) |
28.6 |
| Nonfarm |
17.1 |
| Metropolitan |
13.1 |
These data support much of what was found in Trampled Dreams and Swept
Away, our regional economic reviews published in the last three years. There we found that non-farm self-employment and small businesses accounted for large portions of job creation in rural communities, especially those that are still agriculturally based.
A recent study by Dr. Ed Fitzsimmons, a Creighton University economist, also alerts policymakers to the importance of small business development in rural communities. Dr. Fitzsimmons’ report – Explaining Variation in Income among Rural Farm Counties in the Great Plains – finds that county average per capita incomes increase with economic diversity; that is, as more non-farm businesses are developed and created in rural counties, average incomes in counties increase.
These data drive home the point that small business development must be a significant part of the economic development policy of the state, particularly the state’s rural development policy. Study after study has shown how important small business development is to rural communities, yet resources for small business development remain lacking.
In earlier research we found state policy continues to provide resources for small business development in amounts disproportionately low to contributions small business make to the state. For example, we found a ratio of 286:1 in terms of state support for tax incentives and abatements versus small business and entrepreneurial development.
This year’s session of the Nebraska Legislature witnessed another, albeit small, example of this partiality. The Microenteprise Partnership Development Act (that funds the Center’s REAP program and other small business development programs in the state) was on the receiving end of a cut in state funding to assist in balancing the state budget. On the other hand, no changes or reductions were made in the state’s business tax incentive programs.
Since the Legislature and the Governor began its series of budget-balancing budget cuts in 2001, the Microenteprise Partnership Development Act has lost over half its funding while the major business tax incentive programs have not been touched. We must continue full funding of, or even increase funding for, the Microenterprise Partnership Development Act to allow more rural people to meet their entrepreneurial dreams and to allow current rural businesses to expand markets, jobs, and incomes.
Kansas has recognized the need for a comprehensive rural development strategy based on entrepreneurial development by developing the Kansas Economic Growth Act, signed into law by Governor Kathleen Sebelius in April. Among other provisions, the law establishes the Kansas Center for Entrepreneurship to provide training, financial, and other support for businesses in rural or other distressed communities, and creates a statewide enterprise facilitation program. Kansas appears to have grasped the data on how important small business development and entrepreneurism is to rural communities. We hope other states follow their lead.
Contact: Jon Bailey,
jonb@cfra.org or 402.687.2100 extension 1013.
|
|
|
Addressing Challenges to Rural Children
The Center is working with Voices for Children to understand and improve conditions for low-income children in rural Nebraska
Since 1987, Voices for Children has focused on the well-being of Nebraska’s children. For the past 11 years, the nonprofit has compiled the annual KIDS COUNT in Nebraska Report, released every January.
Funded by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, KIDS COUNT is targeted to those making policy decisions and designing programs for the welfare of children.
Three years ago Voices for Children in Nebraska and KIDS COUNT agencies in North and South Dakota identified a common concern: most national studies on poverty focus on children and families in metropolitan areas rather than those from rural
environments.
The group believed rural families face different challenges in raising their children. Yet no body of research or common language documented the circumstances endangering the ability to raise healthy children in rural
communities.
With funding from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Great Plains Rural Collaborative was established to document the unique strengths and challenges affecting the quality of life for low-income rural children and for their families.
In December, 2001 the collaboration published A Rural Road: Exploring Economic
Opportunity, Social Networks, Services and Supports that Affect Rural Families. A copy of this report can be down-loaded at
http://www.voicesforchildren.com [First click Advocacy, then click on Publications.]
In producing this study, the Rural Collaborative drew on research from the Center for Rural Affairs. Since then, we have worked with Voices for Children to analyze data from the studies and determine the best next steps.
The two organizations hope to collaborate on another initiative to help Nebraska families – if funding can be secured. Both organizations believe all children in Nebraska are best served by genuine economic opportunity and sustainable communities.
Contact: Voices for Children in Nebraska or acquire a copy of the 2003 KIDS COUNT in Nebraska Report at
www.voicesforchildren.com or call the Omaha office, 402.597.3100.
Field Days Showcase On-farm Research
Practical Farmers of Iowa (PFI) plans 19 field days this summer and fall. Started 17 years ago, the field days showcase PFI’s pioneering work in on-farm research – where farmers conduct research on their own farms to answer their own questions. From better weed control to new methods of controlling pests, solutions are shared with other farmers through these events, other publications, and the PFI website.
This year’s slate of field days includes everything from organic farm tours with food and live music to in-depth looks at open-pollinated corn and soybean aphid control. The events are free and open to everyone. Since the program was established in 1987, over 22,000 people have attended.
“PFI farmers are out there putting sustainable theory into practice,” PFI president and Solon, Iowa, farmer Susan Zacharakis-Jutz said. An important feature of the work is building learning relationships between university researchers and farmers. PFI’s cooperator farmers analyze their research results with assistance from Iowa State University Extension.
Field days run June 12 through September 21. Some highlights of this year’s field day schedule include:
- Tours of farms participating in the popular Buy Fresh, Buy Local campaign.
- Three events exploring the integration of crops and livestock.
- A July 24 celebration of Marshalltown Community College’s new sustainable agriculture program with an address by Leopold Center director Fred
Kirschenmann.
For more information: call the PFI office at 515.232.5661, or go to
http://www.practicalfarmers.org
Field day guides are available while they last.
Value-Added Producer Grant Funding Round Expected
Soon
Intense competition for fewer funds will require grant applications to be precise
USDA Rural Development in Nebraska has been told to expect the Notice of Funds Available (NOFA) for the 2004 round of Value-Added Producer Grants (VAPG) sometime in late May or early June of this year. After the NOFA is published in the Federal Register, applicants will probably have 60 days to submit a proposal.
VAPG funds in the past have been divided into two broad categories – planning grants and working capital grants. Until the official NOFA is published, however, nothing is “set in stone.” Last year, approximately $40,000,000 was awarded under the VAPG program; only $13,000,000 to $14,000,000 is expected to be available in 2004.
Competition for the reduced funds will be intense. One USDA official noted reviewers will likely be very strict with incomplete applications or applications that don’t exactly follow directions.
The USDA official said that it is possible independent contractors who score proposals might disqualify applications that “forget to check a box” on required federal forms based on the rule that incomplete proposals cannot be considered for funding.
USDA will schedule at least three informational meetings across Nebraska soon after the NOFA is published. The Center’s website will have information available at about the same time, as will next month’s newsletter.
|
|
Introducing Fresh Promises
A new series focusing on strategies and practices around the country helping to revitalize rural communities.
Author’s note: Most of the ideas you will see here were discovered while researching a follow-up report to Swept Away: Chronic Hardship and Fresh Promise on the Rural Great Plains. The new report, to be published later this summer, will chronicle the Fresh Promises in the region. This column draws on the good ideas and practices we found across the country.
South Platte Business Beyond the Farm, Holdrege, Nebraska
Betty Sayers and her sister Nancy Herhahn know that one of the major problems rural areas face today is the decline of population and the loss of youth. They started South Platte Business Beyond the Farm to help alleviate the problem.
The sisters are working to build a database of 10,000 people who graduated in the South Platte River region since 1950. When the database reaches its goal, a survey will be developed and sent to alumni about their interests, occupations, and other facts.
When job openings are announced by local employers, the sisters will be able to help local employers “bring back” those who have left the region for other employment opportunities. For more information, contact Betty at 866.639.7013 or visit
http://www.businessbeyondthefarm.com
Source: Kearney Hub, September 2003
Entrepreneurial Fairfield, Iowa
Located in the southeast part of the state, Fairfield is the county seat of Jefferson County and boasts a population of over 9,000. Fairfield has been recognized as one of the nation’s most entrepreneurial small towns.
The town boasts a host of support services including: the Fairfield Economic Development Association, Fairfield Entrepreneur’s Association, the Chamber of Commerce, Iowa State’s Center for Community Vitality, Maharishi University of Management, the local Small Business Development Center, and many others.
The key to their success has been true collaboration. Over the past 15 years, 2,000 jobs have been created, and the town averages $10 million in new construction each year. Visit
http://www.cityoffairfieldiowa.com
Source: Grassroots Rural Entrepreneurship: Best Practices for Small Communities, National Center for Small Communities and the Kauffman
Foundation http://www.smallcommunities.org
Contact: Kim Preston, kimp@cfra.org
for more information or to submit ideas for the column.
|
|
Land Development Done Right Will Enhance Rural Communities
Keep local ownership and control of development, preserve traditional land uses, and ensure tourism dollars stay in the area
Land is one of the primary assets of agricultural communities. Using some of that land to satisfy Americans’ yearning for access to
nature can support community development and create new opportunities. But it needs to be done right – with community members in control and in a way that supports self-employment and small business.
Farming and ranching will long be the primary use of land in most agricultural communities. But communities can benefit by diversifying land use so that it complements rather than threatens agriculture. The effort can be as modest as working in partnership with farmers and ranchers to make the community more attractive by providing access to natural space.
For example, communities can work in partnership with landowners to restore strips along streams to grass and trees and provide public access. Federal conservation programs could compensate the landowners. The hiking and nature-related opportunities could make the community more inviting for new people who buy homes, start businesses, and help reinvigorate the community.
There are larger opportunities – and potential pitfalls – in some areas. For example, ongoing efforts to preserve the natural character of Western Iowa’s Loess Hills will tap their potential to draw visitors and support community development.
Talk of committing a significant block of grasslands on the Great Plains to habitat for native wildlife such as buffalo and elk is increasing. The vast African Serengeti grasslands draw wildlife enthusiasts from around the world. Some have suggested the Great Plains is the American Serengeti with equal capacity to draw visitors.
That could diversify the economic base for affected communities and provide a whole new set of economic opportunities. But how it is done matters a great deal. Communities fare best if:
- Land is locally owned and controlled – Approaches that restore and protect land while keeping ownership and control in the hands of local citizens are better than absentee ownership and control, whether by private parties or government.
- Land use is diversified – Voluntary approaches that leave room for agriculture and other existing businesses better serve communities than heavy-handed approaches that dictate a single land use.
- There is a deliberate strategy to foster small entrepreneurship – Tourist economies tend to be low-wage economies, often dominated by national hotel and restaurant chains. If the economic benefits of tourism development are to be widely shared, business ownership must be widely held.
Agree or disagree? Send your opinion, comments, or questions to Chuck
Hassebrook, chuckh@cfra.org or 402.687.2100, extension 1018.
Graduates Heralded at Center for Rural Affairs
We are proud to recognize several recent high school and college graduates. Congratulations to:
- Keith Mahaney, board member and husband of staff member Peggy Mahaney. Keith graduated from Wayne State College with a Bachelor’s degree in Business Management.
- Gerard Ras, the Center’s Administrative Director, who completed his MBA at Wayne State College.
- Amanda and Emily Fraas, Coleridge, accepted at the University of Nebraska Lincoln to major in dance and in dance and nutrition. Amanda and Emily are daughters of Jeanie and Wyatt
Fraas.
- Erin Johnson, Homer, plans to attend Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa and to study Pharmacology. Erin is the daughter of Joy and Ruben Johnson.
- Leah McClure, Wymore - Southern High School graduate, planning to attend Peru State College and major in elementary education. Leah is the daughter of Glennis and Ed McClure.
- Grant Powell, Wayne, headed for South Dakota School of Mines and Technology to study Atmospheric Science. Grant is the son of Marie and Tim Powell.
|
