2.Identify an agricultural policy that you have learned about in this class. State
why this specific policy was enacted (What was the need?). What are the
overall goals of this policy (What is it trying to achieve?)? Identify the various
groups who might be impacted (i.e., the “Winners” and “Losers”) by that
policy and articulate how it might affect them (What are the different
viewpoints?).
Through this class I have learned about the Illinois Nutrient Loss Reduction
Strategy. This strategy's main concept is to reduce nutrient loss in water bodies of
Illinois and gulf of mexico. It was enacted because excessive amounts of nutrients
like nitrogen nitrate and phosphorus are damaging the aquatic ecosystems and
human health who are using it for drinking purposes. The main goal of the strategy is
to reduce the amounts of these chemicals in the water bodies and to improve water
quality. For these the government has improved and identified nearly 65 agriculture
related programs, initiatives and projects to reduce the nutrient loss it spent nearly
27 million dollars to implement these strategies. If i talk about the impact of this
strategy on the two groups and name them as winner and losers, winners are
environmental activists because it helping and protecting the aquatic ecosystem and
the states that are bordering mississippi river and gulf of mexico because this
strategy is reducing the dead zone in mexico caused by the nutrient runoff.
Obviously local communities will benefitted with this, even farmers who obtain
sustainable practices to reduce the runoff will end up by cost savings and soil health,
crop yields etc.even research communities will be benefitted through the funding
they recieve for this strategy. And coming to the losers, fertilizer and pesticide
companies will be losers because when farmers adopt sustainable practices to
reduce nutrient runoff their business will be impacted.Waste water treatment plants
will be impacted by this since it will require expensive infrastructure updates to
handle.
5. What are two “forces” (there are many) behind agricultural policy changes?
How do these “forces” influence policy change? Please provide a thorough
and detailed response.
If i have to choose only two forces i will pick instability of agriculture and politics and
public concerns are the most effective things that change agriculture policy. First one
is instability of agriculture it happens due to price volatility in markets due to weather
conditions, suplly and demand changes cause the price rise and drops. Crop failures
due to droughts,floods and unexpected pests and diseses causes farmers loss and
they will not deliver the expected yield in to the market. If that damage happens in
large amount then people have to depend on the imports from other countries. There
is also fluctuation of costs in seeds and fertilizers for every year. The other one is
politics and public concerns, the policy changes happen with every governent
change, some might feel it useful some may change the policy according to their
convinience. USA mainly focusses on the food safety keeping that in consideration it
mostly changes food policies that will hard on the farmers to adapt it everytime they
change. Trade agreements and tariffs are changed according to the relation of the
present government with other countries. For instance, the dispute between China
and the USA for chicken legs and washing machine parts( excuse me if I gave a
wrong example). The pressure of public opinions will also impact the policy change.
Because few might feel it as beneficial, when they are benefitting from it, some may
feel it as a burden, when they are affected by it. For example extraterritorial zoning, if
people are receiving benefits from municipality they consider it as a good policy and
if not they demand for changes in the policy.
7. What is the reason why the government intervenes in agriculture? What are
ways that intervention occurs and what are its outcomes?
The goal of government involvement in agriculture is stability, and through the laws
and policies it enacts, it attempts to appease the public. It intervenes in food security
to provide nutritious and quality food products to the people. Rural development
supports the agriculture system because it is the main base for agriculture
production. During the price volatility and the grain dealers bankrupt it helps in
maintaining the loss with subsidies and insurance claims. By providing loans for the
farmers in the lowest interest possible to encourage them to do more production,
even when there is unexpected income. Encouraging farmers to include sustainable
and organic farming. Providing information about the market instability through the
price charts and calculations it can predict the futures price and making them aware
of the future market. Through investing in agriculture research and innovations to
provide farmers more profitable outcomes. By influencing trade agreements with
countries and exporting the excess yield to other countries. I think government
involvement in agriculture was more beneficial compared to detrimental. Improved
food security by implementing food policies. Supporting farmers with subsidies to run
their lives. By contributing to research, invention of disease resistant seeds or more
yield producing seeds. Better trade practices for livestock and farm commodities.
Rural development policies and tax payment policy differently for the agriculture
lands. Implementing a conservation program and rewarding farmers for performing it.
If I have to talk about the negative outcomes , sometimes budget constraints in a few
areas, even when it's needed. Trade disputes between the countries will also affect
agricultural imports and income through it.