Farm Bill: New EWG Web Site on Farm Subsidies
To Go Public June 12
It's the Full Monty of farm subsidy disclosure. And the results are eye-popping.
Well, maybe not this eye-popping.
EWG will launch an entirely new database of farm subsidy recipients and beneficiaries on June 12. It will be searchable to the public first thing that morning.
Based on data compiled by USDA pursuant to Section 1614 of the 2002 Farm Bill, our site will track $43.12 billion in subsidy benefits provided under Title I (commodity) and Title II (conservation) programs for 2003-2005, right down to individual beneficiaries--A.K.A. "warm bodies" or "natural persons" in USDA parlance.
It is the first time subsidy tracking to this degree has been possible.
We obtained the data in December, 2006, after years of Freedom of Information Act requests and appeals. Hat tip to those at USDA who worked so hard to comply with the law and produce the new data.
Hundreds of thousands of people who've never had a penny next to their names in our Farm Subsidy Database will now be disclosed as beneficiaries of subsidies that pass through all manner of farm businesses--coops, partnerships, joint ventures, corporations and so forth. And pass-through subsidy benefits to thousands of these folks run to six-figures year after year.
Those "top recipient" lists that generate tens of thousands of searches on our current site every day? Just about every one of those rankings is about to change, particularly in rice and cotton country. But there are surprises everywhere.
And what exactly makes these data new? As USDA put it when releasing it:
• It is the first time payments made to entities (corporations, co-ops, etc) have been attributed down to “natural persons.”• For example, previous releases of payment data would show one large payment to a co-op. The 1614 database shows the benefits attributed to each member of the co-op.
• Certificate gains will also be attributed to individuals.
And how did USDA track benefits down to "natural persons"?
• Benefits are attributed to members of an entity by apportioning the benefits according to each member’s percentage share of that entity.• The share percentage is found in the permitted entity file [which was released in May, 2006].
Stay tuned. We'll be dropping more hints about the new site in the days ahead.
BTW, it's called the EWG Farm Bill 2007 Policy Analysis Database. It will fully link to the Farm Subsidy Database that's already public.
Comments
This is great news. We only wish we had this degree of transparency over here in Europe. While the farmsubsidy.org network has moved things a long way in the past three years, we are still facing an uphill battle.
The latest discouraging news comes from EU Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel, who, while agreeing with the principle of transparency, seems to have her officials fighting a rearguard action against publishing data to the same detail as in the US.
In her blog last week Commissioner Fischer Boel said she believed that:
"To make the information that is published too detailed and complicated would, I believe, be counterproductive."
Link: http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/blog_fischerboel/page/fischerboel?entry=inspiring_belfast
The kind of detail that the Commission is proposing omitting is basic stuff like individual scheme names and precise geographic location information.
To us, this makes no sense, and we are pushing back as hard as we can. Any help from across the Atlantic, would be much appreciated.
Posted by: Jack Thurston | May 19, 2007 3:01 PM
now since (dairys)collected a lot of subsities (YOU) should make them put it to work for the enviroment...
what i'm trying to say is that every one takes away from mother nature but no one replentisher her.. example dairy farmer recieved 1,000,000.00 sub. his farn is close to a natural run off drainage area .HE must do something in highly populated areas to prevent dairy waste from their property from getting into creek solution arguemeent bi level contoursreverse drainage back to the higer elevation parts of the landa big ditchwould work remove sediment from waste water sand traps seperators ,etc...just one little thing can make a difference spanich e-coli the manure is like gold... to farmers but did anyone haul it out of the corral put in a big pile ( throgh fermation)it might of killed any pathogens then apply it to the farm ground proablly wouldn't have had a problem ( like preventative matainance)who is going to kinda regulate these things (retired dairy farmers not drive by farmers)mostly they will be on the uppity up with the one who counts mostly is mother nature it will be replentish her 4 years to come no we dont need h2o air quality etc... we need FARM brearu representatives where they cn help for a better tomorrow thank you
Posted by: Anonymous | May 20, 2007 5:23 PM
This new EWG data base will again be only a partial glimpse of subsidies received by US farmers if it doesnot include federal crop insurance subsidies. These FCIC subsidies and the FCIC financial security blankets given to the largest farmers are equally dispicable in the financial edge they give the largest farmers.
Posted by: Lowell Thorson | May 21, 2007 12:32 AM
Unfortunately for Mr. Thorson's suggestion, the subsidy of crop insurance isn't specific to an individual. Everyone who buys a given policy for a crop gets a lower rate than they should be paying on a straight actuarial basis.
Posted by: Bill Harshaw | May 31, 2007 3:10 PM
Granted the subsidy received does not come as a FSA check payable to a specific individual. However, the net FCI premium charged the individual on his MPCI statement clearly shows the specific risk subsidy awarded this specific individual in many cases. My main point is that again, this just another example of Congress giving certain individuals financial benefits of great value and others benefits of nominal value. In other words there are great differences in the value of the benefits received by different individuals.
Posted by: Lowell Thorson | July 8, 2007 3:02 PM