Working Resolutions - THE LIST after day 2
Resolved: The USFG should substantially reduce its agricultural support, through the elimination of all or nearly all domestic support, export subsidies and /or market access barriers, for one or more of: biofuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, corn, cotton, dairy, fisheries, rice, soybeans, sugar, wheat.
Resolution 1b:
Resolved: The USFG should substantially reduce its agricultural support, through the elimination of all or nearly all domestic support, export subsidies and /or market access barriers, for biofuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, fisheries, and/or one or more of the commodity crops (commodities) in the 2007 Farm Bill.
Resolution #2
Resolved: The USFG should substantially reduce its agricultural support, at least eliminating all or nearly all of its domestic subsidies, for one or more of: biofuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, corn, cotton, dairy, fisheries, rice, soybeans, sugar, wheat.
Resolution #2b:
Resolved: The USFG should substantially reduce its agricultural support, at least eliminating all or nearly all of its domestic subsidies, for biofuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, fisheries, and/or one or more of the commodity crops (commodities) in the 2007 Farm Bill.
Resolution #3
Resolved: The USFG should substantially reduce its agricultural support as measured by the Producer Support Estimate for one or more of: biofuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, corn, cotton, dairy, fisheries, rice, soybeans, sugar, wheat.
Resolution 3b:
Resolved: The USFG should substantially reduce its agricultural support as measured by the Producer Support Estimate for biofuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, fisheries, and/or one or more of the commodity crops (commodities) in the 2007 Farm Bill.
Resolution #4
Resolved: The USFG should substantially reduce its agricultural support, as measured by the Producer Support Estimate, at least eliminating all or nearly all domestic subsidies, for one or more of: biofuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, corn, cotton, dairy, fisheries, rice, soybeans, sugar, wheat.
Resolution 4b:
Resolved: The USFG should substantially reduce its agricultural support, as measured by the Producer Support Estimate, at least eliminating all or nearly all domestic subsidies for biofuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, fisheries, and/or one or more of the commodity crops (commodities) in the 2007 Farm Bill.
Interesting choices. My question is: by "commodity crops (commodities) in the 2007 Farm Bill" what is meant exactly? According to the Thomas database it seems like the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 is the legislation that was passed by the Senate and the House and presumably will be the one eventually put into place.
If so, why not use the term defined in that legislation? Which, according to Thomas, seems to be:
(4) COVERED COMMODITY- The term `covered commodity' means wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton, long grain rice, medium grain rice, pulse crops, soybeans, and other oilseeds.
My question boils down to: if you're going to use the farm bill as a reference (which I'm not saying is good or bad one way or another), why not use the term or terms in the farm bill itself?
I hope I'm not repeating anything that's been discussed already. Thanks.
Reply to this
thanks for all the hard work and research. Quick query (didn't see this in the other links): why "agricultural support" instead of just "support"? Support is defined in the remainder of the wording. The adjective seems meaningless and perhaps confusing. Thanks again, kevin
Reply to this
Agricultural support means a specific thing that refers to the types of market interventions (payments to domestic supporters and charges to foreign importers). Support means something much more general and may include some irritating things (Bush's expressed support for honeybee's, for instance) that were not the intent of the paper, the people, or the committee to include.
Reply to this
WHY FISH?
I haven’t seen discussion of the rationale for fisheries and am curious why every/any option has it. The controversy paper identifies 4 articles. They indicate a problem, but 3 don’t assign blame to the US. The 2nd article (Burnett) identifies the US need to act but says much more than reducing subsidies needs done, ignores the current US proposal before the WTO, and admits Bush has taken anti-overfishing action (revising the Magnuson-Stevens Act). And, the Burnett article is real short (1 solvency card). I don’t think any of the supplemental work addresses the question of US responsibility/solvency either. Evidence suggests we're moving against these subsidies and that we're not the key subsidizer (Japan/EU/China/India/Russia/Brazil all do more).
“Controversy” sources
1-IHT:
The United States called Tuesday for global trade talks to include a ban on billions of dollars worth of ecology-damaging subsidies linked to excess capacity of fleets, overfishing and depletion of fish stocks…
The proposal was welcomed by green advocacy groups which have been generally critical of the Bush administration's stance on global environmental issues.
"It's a strong proposal," said David Schorr, senior fellow with the World Wildlife Fund. "We think it provides a good framework for moving forward."
Courtney Sakai, campaign director for Oceana, an advocacy group for protecting the oceans, said the United States "made a bold move towards achieving a successful outcome" in the talks…
Japan was the biggest fisheries subsidizer, providing about $5.3 billion a year, followed by the EU and China with $3.1 billion each; India, $2.4 billion; Russia, $1.9 billion; Brazil, $1.3 billion, and the United States, $1.2 billion, according to an economic study cited by Oceana.
3-Oceana:
The United States is a part of the “Friends of Fish,” a diverse coalition of developed and developing countries, including New Zealand, Australia, Chile, Ecuador, Pakistan, Peru, the Philippines, and others. These countries are working together to eliminate harmful fisheries subsidies by strengthening international trade rules. These efforts are also supported by conservation, environmental, business, and consumer interests.
4-UNEP:
Progress at the negotiating table has been slow but steady. Under the leadership of a broad coalition, including New Zealand, Chile and the United States, the talks have moved into a substantive discussion over how new rules should work. Importantly, the concerns of developing countries have also received early attention, with Brazil playing a key role. Consensus is now emerging in favour of significant new rules, including an outright ban on the most dangerous kinds of fishing subsidies.
Additional sources:
http://www.seaaroundus.org/OtherWebsites/2007/PR_Inside_USSenatorsCallForWorldwideBanOnDestructiveFishingSubsidies.pdf
http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Trade-and-Economic-Relations/NZ-and-the-WTO/Rules-For-International-Trade/0-fishsubsidiesneg.php
Reply to this
This may be similar to one of the above comments but I think it might make sense to change the "2007 Farm Bill" to the "Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007." The latter is the name of the actual legislation (I believe) that passed the House and Senate and is often referred to in the news as the "2007 Farm Bill." Most likely it won't matter that much in the context of the year. However, immediately following the announcement of the 2003 Europe topic a few people raised concerned about the use of "2002 Farm Bill" rather than "Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002."
If your interested in these posters comments from 2003, here they are:
Alfred Snider:
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2003-July/050643.html
J.P. Lacy:
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2003-July/050654.html
Stefan Bauschard (response):
http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2003-July/050656.html
As I said, I think if the words stayed the same there would be very little impact. However, I don't see a DA to changing it to the legislation's official name.
Nice work to everyone involved.
Reply to this
According to THOMAS (thomas.loc.gov) the Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 08 pass the House and Senate:
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)[H.R.2419.ENR]
Whereas the Farm, Nutr and Bioenergy Act of 07 doesn't appear to have passed the Senate; here's the latest I found on it in the Senate:
Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007 (Placed on Calendar in Senate)[H.R.2419.PCS]
But I think I agree with Sue Peterson's analysis today (in the next blog entry up) that there's no real reason to mention the legislation by name.
Reply to this
I have some thoughts regarding the inclusion of fisheries in each of the resolutions.
(1) The term "agricultural support" may be problematic when used in conjunction with fisheries. Not everyone agrees that fisheries are "agriculture." There are definitions of agriculture that include fisheries, but there are lots of articles that speak of agricultural subsidies and fishing subsidies as two distinct things. All the resolutions require the USFG to "substantially reduce its agricultural support." My fear is that negatives will construct topicality arguments that claim just reducing fishery subsidies does not reduce agricultural support since fishing subsidies may not be "agricultural support."
Simply deleting "agricultural" is one possible solution but that might introduce other problems.
(2) Fisheries may not work in the PSE resolution. This issue may have been researched already by the committee, but I'm not sure that fishery subsidies are usually included in calculations of the United States' PSE. I did a few searches and didn't turn up an article saying fishery subsidies are calculated as part of the PSE. And one article seemed to suggest that subsidies to fisheries can't be calculated through the PSE method: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/55/2349472.pdf
Reply to this
Actually, there are many sources that commonly include "aquaculture" as part of agriculture.
I was about to post them but my gate just changed, so I will try to get them up soon.
Reply to this
Okay, the Minneapolis airport doesn't seem to like me very much, but very quickly:
The big issue is that the USDA makes a distinction between agriculture and aquaculture, which could be problematic. Of course, parts of the USFG like to do all sorts of fun things when it comes to "definitions" - remember, despite actual scientific accuracy, our gov "labels" tomatoes as vegetables because of tariffs. Much like how we occasionally abuse terms in resolutional to get at a larger end, federal legislation does the same. I think if fisheries are in the "Farm Bill" (they're working on that) there is no real issue, if not, it may be complicated.
Yes, a debate can be had that "agricultural support" does not occur for "fish", but I think there are sufficient other sources to allow limits. Two examples are UN measurements and state legislations:
The Economic Research Service notes one distinction in how the USDA “defines” agriculture, versus other measurements found in the UN: http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/agtrade/questions.htm
The United Nations's Food and Agricultural Organization maintains an online database (FAOSTAT) by commodity and country, which includes consistent production, consumption, and trade data, although some of its online data are by subscription only. FAO data are also available in printed format in libraries. FAO's trade data differ from those of the United States as follows:
• FAO's definition of agriculture includes several major product groups excluded from USDA's definition of agriculture: fish, forestry, hard liquors, and manufactured tobacco products.
Recent legislation in Hawaii has attempted to address the division.
Report Title:
Agribusiness Development Corporation; Agriculture; Definition
Description:
Includes in the definition of "agriculture" for purposes of the Agribusiness Development Corporation law, growing of crops for fuel and production of energy.
STATE OF HAWAII
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
TWENTY-FOURTH LEGISLATURE, 2007
SECTION 1. Section 163D-2, Hawaii Revised Statutes, is amended by amending the definition of "agriculture" to read as follows:
""Agriculture" means the production for marketing and exporting of plant and animal life on land and within ponds and other bodies of water for food, fiber, and raw materials for value-added products, and any agricultural enterprise or enterprises organized for the production of agricultural materials or value-added products based on detailed marketing analysis and strategies to exploit profitable potentials in local, national, and international markets, including general farming, cane growing, fruit growing, flower growing, aquaculture, growing of timber and forest products, apiary, grazing, growing of crops for fuel or the production of energy, dairying, and the production of any form of livestock or poultry, and their appurtenant services and facilities."
I also think there's a lit more inclusion in the sustainable ag lit.
Reply to this
A few more thoughts:
(1) I don't think the word "substantially" is necessary in resolutions 2, 2b, 4, or 4b. If the aff is already forced to eliminate all or nearly all subsidies, then the aff is already forced to make a big policy change that should guarantee neg ground. Though I understand its inclusion in the other resolutions, including the extra word "substantially" in resolutions 2 and 4 probably just creates the potential for some unnecessary topicality debates.
(2) Is the committee certain that CAFO subsidies are included in the PSE?
Reply to this
I think this stems from a discussion on Day 1 that established there was a very good contextual consensus within the literature about "substantial" - no less that 60% I believe. Basically it sets a numerical minimum.
Reply to this
Why does 3 include the term "at least"? That seems to only invite extra-topical planks of plans.
Reply to this
RE: THROUGH
(Prepositions Continued)
I just wanted to put this in writing . . .
There had been a question at the end of yesterday regarding the use of the word “through” as the preposition for the mechanisms of agricultural support. I identified that “by” may be an acceptable substitution, but I do not think there is sufficient distinction to cause a change in preference. The only significant usage note is that “by” is often used when writing in the passive voice, which had also been (informally) discussed briefly around lunch without much impact. It seems to suggest that “through” is the most appropriate choice.
Concerns about through seem to stem from conversations related to last year’s topic, but it was resolved that these were issues of inclusion/exclusion that were not from this year’s topic.
A quick comparison of the two terms indicates that in may instances they are uses to define each other when used in the context of discussing a “means”. The example below illustrates that “through” is probably more appropriate to our usage.
http://www.fortunecity.com/bally/durrus/153/gramch26.html
By
1. Near: a house by the sea
2. Past: He waved as he drove by the house.
3. Not later than: Try to finish the work by next week.
4. In units of: cheaper by the dozen; sold by weight
5. Through the means of: travel by plane; written by him
Note: By is often used in combination with verbs in the Passive Voice.
Through
1. Across; from end to end of: the main road through town
2. For the whole of a period: I slept through the night.
3. By means of: Skill improves through practice.
I’m having some internet limits at the moment, so I’m not going to bother posting the other more obvious online sources.
Reply to this
Checks and balances.
As I understand the current discussion, something resembling the following ballot is gaining political strength:
Resolution #1 - Resolved: The USFG should substantially reduce its agricultural support, through the elimination of all or nearly all domestic support, export subsidies and /or market access barriers, for one or more of: biofuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, corn, cotton, dairy, fisheries, rice, soybeans, sugar, wheat.
Resolution #1B - Resolved: The USFG should substantially reduce its agricultural support, through the elimination of all or nearly all domestic support, export subsidies and /or market access barriers, for biofuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, fisheries, and/or one or more of the commodity crops (commodities) in the 2007 Farm Bill.
Resolution #2 - Resolved: The USFG should substantially reduce its agricultural support, at least eliminating all or nearly all of its domestic subsidies, for biofuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, fisheries, and/or one or more of the commodity crops (commodities) in the 2007 Farm Bill.
Resolution #3 - Resolved: The USFG should substantially reduce its agricultural support, at least eliminating all or nearly all of its domestic subsidies, for biofuels, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, fisheries, and/or one or more of the commodity crops (commodities) in the 2007 Farm Bill.
Thought exercise: How does the committee think that ballot compares to this one-
(1) Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should substantially decrease its aggregate measure of support for agricultural production in the United States.
(2) Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should rescind all or nearly of its subsidies for one or more of the following: cotton, corn, rice, soybeans, dairy, ethanol, fishing, and Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.
(3) Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should rescind its subsidies for one or more commodity crops.
(4) Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should remove one or more trade barriers protecting production of commodity crops in the United States.
(5) Resolved: that the United States Federal Government should rescind all or nearly all of its subsidies for one or more crops subsidized in the 2007 Farm Bill.
I suggest again that the latter, no matter how problematic the committee perceives it to be was democratically voted on by a majority of the institutions in our organization. I wonder whether the committee as constituted comes close to representing the diversity of the community as represented in the controversy vote.
All of the topic committee choices further define the verbage much further then the controversy paper does, without any options that resemble the choices made in the paper.
Still having big picture concerns...
Ede
Reply to this
I'm not sure I really understand the distinction you're getting at. What do you feel the latter list allows for in terms of arguments that the former list doesn't?
Reply to this
Three things are readily apparent: 1) the decision to further define the verbs in all of the choices; 2) the decision to only use "decrease agricultural support" as the verb in each topic; and 3) to a much lesser degree, the consideration of eliminating the fishing discussion, when it's in all of the topics voted on.
Reply to this
I love you too Steve! Until you come to one of Chris' games, I have to irritate you...
...okay, even if you come to one of his games, I'm still probably going to irritate you...
And yes Steve, perhaps someone voted for agr because they got excited about fisheries being in the discussion.
That's the point: does the committee know what built the broad based political and coalition support which created the winning controversy paper? If not, then the closer you stay to the original paper, the more likely you'll reduce backlash to your choices. (I am an expert on dealing with community backlash
You can buy my silence with a donation to the newly created 11 and under travel team, the Blue Lick Monarchs. We'll even come to Cincy for a tournament in the fall!
I'm done. I've made the point. Have a great day folks!
Reply to this