| ************************************************
RAFI-USA Tobacco Reinvestment Fund Awards Cost-Share
Grants
By Jason Roehrig, RAFI-USA Program Director, Tobacco
Community Reinvestment Fund
RAFI-USA's Tobacco Communities Reinvestment Fund recently
awarded $200,000 worth of cost-share grants to farmers and community groups
throughout North Carolina. RAFI made the grants with the support of the
North Carolina Tobacco Trust Fund Commission in order to assist with the
development of new enterprises, which demonstrate innovative ways to replace
lost tobacco income.
The cost-share awards enable farmers to diversify income sources and retain
more of the value of farm products. The initiatives generate farm employment,
especially self-employment, find new uses for tobacco equipment and facilities,
enhance and protect farm and natural resources, and benefit other farmers
and communities.
To be eligible for the Producer Grant program farmers must be farming
currently and have derived significant income from tobacco at the time
of the Master Settlement Agreement. Groups that are eligible for Community
Grant Awards must include qualifying farmers and have farmers active in
the leadership of the group. This year, RAFI accepted applications from
fourteen target counties: Alleghany, Ashe, Bladen, Bertie, Columbus, Gates,
Halifax, Hertford, Lee, Moore, Northampton, Robeson, Surry, and Yadkin.
The fourteen Producer Grants and six Community Grants awarded will directly
benefit farmers in more than 20 North Carolina counties. Through project
outreach and education, these demonstration projects will help shape the
future of agriculture throughout the state.
RAFI has operated the Tobacco Communities Reinvestment Fund since 1997.
For more information on the program and previous grant recipients, visit
our website at www.rafiusa.org.
The following are the 2004 Tobacco Communities Reinvestment Fund award
winners:
Mike and Kay Winn
Reaching Value-Added Markets with Grass-fed Lamb
Northampton County
Alan Souther
Organic Greenhouse
Alleghany County
Floyd & June Reeves and Elizabeth Roupe
Espalier Apple Tree Production for Nursery Market
Alleghany County
Jeffrey and Roger Cox
Laurel Ridge Farms Meat Goat Producers
Ashe County
Carl V. Matthews
Matthews Pine Needle Farm
Yadkin County
Eddie L. Strickland
Down Home Food and Fun
Columbus County
Boyce G. White
HJ White Farm Finishing Project
Bladen County
Curtis Ludlum
Bulk Storage Facility to feed out cattle
Bladen County
Willard Johnson & Lee Johnson
Johnson's Cattle Feeding Products
Bladen County
Isaac Singletary,
Reedy Branch Cattle Co.
Bladen County
Kenny Floyd, Jr.,
Value Added Homemade Ice Cream
Robeson County
Danny Kinlaw,
Value Added Pecan Production
Robeson County
Dannie Livingston,
Tomboy's Meats and Vegetables
Robeson County
David Allen
Allen Vineyards
Bladen County
Community Proposals:
CMC Farmers Cooperative
Value Added Empowerment Project
Bertie, Gates, Halifax, Hertford, Northampton Counties
North Carolina Meat Goat Producers Cooperative - Western District
Meat Goat Marketing Project
Ashe, Alleghany, Davie, Iredell, Surry, Wilkes, Yadkin Counties
New River Community Partners
Family Central Shared-Use Commercial Kitchen
Alleghany, Ashe, Watauga Counties
Bladen Cattle Feeders
North Carolina Cattle Finishing
Bladen County
North Carolina Meat Goat Producers Cooperative - Eastern District
Meat Goat Marketing Project
Bladen, Columbus, Cumberland, Harnett, Hoke, Lee, Moore, Robeson,
Scotland Counties
Twin Rivers Farm Cooperative
Equipment Shared-Use Project
Bladen, Duplin, Sampson, Wayne Counties |
*************************************************************
RAFI-USA Hosts Contract Reform Gathering
By Laura Deaton Klauke, Contract Agriculture Reform Director
In early March the Campaign for Contract Agriculture Reform
hosted a gathering of over forty farmers and farm advocates at the RAFI-USA
Dan Politt Conference Center in Pittboro, NC. Participants discussed current
developments in agricultural contracts and explored means to insure the
contract relationship is balanced and fair. The March gathering was a
unique opportunity for leaders from different commodities and states to
share stories, insights and information.
A reoccurring theme throughout the meeting was that contracts are not,
in and of themselves, a bad or good thing, but merely a means of doing
business. The problems arise when the balance of power between the two
parties - the processor, packer, or manufacture and the farmer - becomes
significantly skewed in favor of one or the other. The challenge is to
create a market, policy and legal framework that can help keep a balance.
That framework is not currently in place, though several individuals and
organizations are have made some significant strides.
One of the successes is the recent victory for former Tyson hog producers
in Arkansas. The former hog farmers explained that for years they were
very supportive of Tyson and anything Tyson chose to do. They told of
going to the state capital numerous times on Tyson's behalf. But they
and about 120 other farmers were cut off late one Sunday night, a few
weeks after being asked by Tyson to expand production. This February the
Arkansas Supreme Court ruled the binding arbitration clause in their contracts
was unenforceable and the farmers won the right to have their case go
before a jury.
As one of the former Tyson hog farmers told the gathering at the closing,
"I just have to apologize to each of you right now. I used to think
people like you had horns and a tail - because that is what Tyson told
me... I would have fought you folks tooth and nail for what you were trying
to do. Now I'm thankful you are here."
While the agenda included several presentations and panels, for many,
a highlight was the four-person panel of contract farmers. The panel included
a peanut, tobacco, hog and poultry farmer. Though the commodities are
different and each commodity has very different contract language and
payment structures, several critical similarities emerged:
For a number of reasons, all farmers are under tremendous pressure to
sign a contract. For example, some peanut contracts were only made available
during a two-week window this winter. Either the farmer signed up then
or he or she has no contract.
All the farmers stressed the lack of real market options. As markets have
become consolidated farmers are left with only one or two major buyers,
who are then in a position to "call the shots." For example,
Phillip Morris controls fifty percent of the domestic tobacco market.
Farmers signed contracts because it offered what seemed to be one of the
only economically viable options for staying on the farm.
All of the farmers noted the movement towards more corporate control over
farm-level decision making. Even those with marketing contracts, such
as tobacco and peanut farming, saw corporate control of production practices
filtering into the contract relationship. Control can be exerted over
genetics (seeds and breeds), inputs (the what, when and how of feeds,
fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides) and capital investments (buildings
and specialized equipment requirements).
Several farmers noted the silencing effect of contracting. Farmers acknowledged
the fear that speaking out or being perceived as a troublemaker will cost
a farmer his or her contract.
Related to the above, the panelists noted that the fear of losing the
contract or the opportunity to contract created a significant barrier
when trying to organize farmers to negotiate for better deals or more
balanced contract terms.
Several farmers noted the threat of cheap imports increases the pressure
to have a secure buyer, exasperating the fear and stifling demands for
reform.
The meeting ended with a drafting of next steps and opportunities for
the individuals and organizations present to move forward. One issue that
became clear was the need for more information to farmers about the long-term
risks and benefits of contracting and contract farmers' legal rights.
In addition, participants articulated the need for agricultural contract
standards at the state and federal level that reduce opportunities for
coercion and abuse. One of those standards is voluntary arbitration. Farmers
and advocates repeatedly pointed to the fact that arbitration as used
in production contracts can be a very expensive and an inappropriate dispute
resolution process for farmers who are the victim of a significant breach
of contract or fraud. If upheld, forced arbitration clauses rob growers
of their right to have a complaint heard in court before a jury. Fair
Contracts for Growers Act of 2003 (S 91) is federal legislation that if
passed would keep arbitration in poultry and livestock production contracts
voluntary. Opportunities to establish fair arbitration standards for agricultural
contracts may also be growing at the state level given recent indications
from the US Supreme Court.
For more information contact Laura Deaton Klauke at
RAFI-USA
6705 Miles Drive
Raleigh, NC 27615
919-845-4615
fax: 919-847-0971
laura@rafiusa.org
|
************************************************
Marlow Appointed as Representative to "Agriculture
of the Middle" Initiative
By Scott Marlow, RAFI-USA Program Director, On Farm
Research, Farm Recovery
If we look at the trends in numbers of farms and farm size
over the last several decades, we see an increasingly polarized agriculture.
While overall farm numbers have dropped, there has been growth in farm
numbers in the very small - those farms that can sell directly and take
advantage of niche markets- and the very large - those that can still
survive with the very small margins of the commodity markets. We are rapidly
losing farms between these two extremes, the "agriculture of the
middle", that are too big to move into niche markets and direct marketing,
but not large enough to compete in the commodity markets.
Over 80% of the farmland in the United States is currently managed by
"farmers-of-the-middle." Historically, because they farm in
a community, often on land that is seen as their family's heritage, these
farmers make farm decisions based on more than producing commodities at
the lowest price. They also maintain agricultural economic activity in
their community that maintains agribusiness viability, local employment,
and the local tax base. As these farms disappear, the public good that
these farms have provided, such as land stewardship and social capital,
disappear with them.
At the same time, there is a developing market for food and products that
are produced in sustainable systems, and consumers are seeking out products
from family farms. It is the farms in the middle that have a comparative
advantage in responding to this demand because their size allows them
to be flexible enough to implement new production and marketing systems,
but with enough volume to supply significant markets. The current question
is whether or not the infrastructure can be created to connect farmers
of the middle with these emerging markets quickly enough to keep the rapidly-
disappearing farms in operation.
A National task force, led by Fred Kirschenman of the Leopold Center at
Iowa State University and Steve Stevenson of the University of Wisconsin-
Madison, has been formed to address these trends, and to develop an action
plan to develop markets and infrastructure that connect farmers of the
middle and emerging markets. With representatives from each of four regions
of the country, the task force is currently developing case studies of
successful examples, policy initiatives to support efforts, and possible
market structures that include the value of the survival of the farm in
the value of the product. RAFI-USA staff member Scott Marlow is one of
the Southern Region representatives on the task force.
For more information on the Task Force and Agriculture of the Middle,
go to www.agofthemiddle.org. |