Continuing discussions on the upcoming 2018 Farm Bill debate have consistently raised several issues and priorities from agricultural interests across the country. At a farm bill listening session with the Nebraska congressional delegation and numerous Nebraska agricultural organizations in September, two common themes continually raised for discussion were crop insurance and trade.

Recent perspectives from Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., and chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, reinforced the notion of crop insurance and trade as the top priorities heard from producers at sessions across the country.

While both issues are critical to agriculture, it is interesting that both have been identified as priorities during the farm bill debate, but actually extend far beyond the farm bill.

Crop insurance plays key role
Crop insurance is a core part of the farm income safety net that is at the heart of farm bill discussions for 2018. Crop insurance was included in its own title, or section of the 2014 Farm Bill, to add new supplemental coverage and other provisions. It has also been noted as a significant part of the farm bill budget (second after nutrition funding for food assistance). However, the underlying crop insurance program is actually authorized and funded separately from the farm bill.

Crop insurance programs have evolved through several separate pieces of legislation, most recently the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000. That act provides the current continuing authority for crop insurance programs, although the details are subject to the regularly revised Standard Reinsurance Agreement (SRA) between the Federal Crop Insurance Corp. and the crop insurance companies approved to deliver federal crop insurance to producers. As a result, the crop insurance programs are not technically dependent on a new farm bill for either authorization or funding, although farm bill discussions and developments could certainly impact crop insurance provisions.

From the continuing input of producers, the general ag message on crop insurance seems to be "Do no harm," keeping existing support in place for crop insurance. That could suggest very little discussion or language in the farm bill regarding crop insurance. However, other interests have pushed for reforms and cuts to crop insurance provisions or supports, and it is difficult to imagine the farm bill debate in Congress without substantial attention to crop insurance.

Trade discussion falls outside fall bill
The discussions about trade are largely about policies and issues beyond the farm bill. While agriculture has generally been a strong beneficiary of trade and a strong proponent of advancing trade negotiations and agreements to grow international market opportunities, it is facing an uncertain trade policy outlook under the Trump administration. Agriculture was a strong proponent of moving the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement forward for ratification, but Trump withdrew the United States from the TPP shortly after taking office. The administration's trade strategy seems to be a shift toward one-on-one negotiations with other countries. In that vein, there have been some new agreements for agriculture that could create export growth to help offset some of the expected trade losses.

Suggestions from the administration of pulling out of the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico furthered the uncertainty before reported input from USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue helped turn the push into renegotiating NAFTA instead of withdrawing. Interestingly, the administrative principles for renegotiating NAFTA have been reported to be substantially like the principles previously negotiated in the TPP agreement, which included the United States, Canada and Mexico along with nine other Pacific Rim countries. While the NAFTA renegotiation talks are ongoing, the administration has made further mention of withdrawing from NAFTA or from other agreements such as the Korea-United States (KORUS) free-trade agreement. All of this discussion about withdrawing from or renegotiating every trade agreement rattles the U.S. economy and confidence in the trade prospects for agriculture and other sectors, particularly as other countries move forward with negotiations and agreements to fill the void.

In the course of nearly every farm bill discussion, agriculture interests have repeatedly expressed their concerns and preferences to policymakers to maintain trade and ag export opportunities, even though trade negotiations and agreements fall outside of the realm of the farm bill. What the farm bill does directly address is the programs that support international food aid, credit, and market promotion and development. For producers concerned about the future of trade agreements and negotiations, these programs that support demand for U.S. agricultural products and help build markets overseas become even more critical going forward. The market promotion and development efforts include two major programs — the Foreign Market Development (FMD) Program and the Market Access Program (MAP) — that leverage federal funding with state and industry funds to expand trade and promote U.S. agricultural goods in international markets. The 2014 Farm Bill also directed USDA to create a new undersecretary for trade position, something Perdue has done to help administer USDA trade programs and to be a point person for USDA in continuing trade discussions.

The prioritization of crop insurance and trade in the continuing farm bill debate is a strong reminder that agriculture has a stake in every part of the farm bill and in many policy areas beyond the current farm bill discussions. Producers and other ag policy stakeholders have also mentioned conservation and environmental regulations, rural broadband, research, bioenergy, health care and immigration among other topics at farm bill sessions around the country. While it may be easier to focus on the farm income safety net and the programs that directly touch farm and ranch operations, it is critical for agricultural producers and policy stakeholders to keep abreast of the wide range issues and engage in the policy process in the months ahead.

Lubben is an Extension policy specialist at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.