117 



lack reliable information on yields for specialty crops. For example, it is not uncommon for 

 producers of specialty crops to grow five or more crops, using crop rotations of five years 

 and more on a single tract of farmland. Consequently, it is difficult for ASCS to establish a 

 reliable yield for a specific crop on limited data. Most specialty growers, noting the difficulty 

 in establishing yields and collecting when crop losses occur, simply choose to farm without 

 crop insurance. In some cases, specialty growers have no reason to visit local ASCS offices 

 and, as a result, are unfamiliar with how federal crop insurance works or that it is even 

 available for the crops they grow. 



Because of the ineffectiveness of crop insurance, specialty growers have tended to rely 

 on disaster assistance for crop losses. While disaster assistance has kept farmers in business 

 after recent disasters, fanners don't like to rely on federal payments that are authorized only 

 if political conditions warrant a legislative response to devastating agricultural losses. In 

 addition, disaster assistance usually only covers a small portion of a farmer's losses. 

 Furthermore, disaster assistance provisions have frequently been written with insufficient 

 flexibility to address the unique circumstances that apply to specialty crops circumstances. In 

 recent disasters, growers in Arizona, Hawaii and other states found it difficult to qualify for 

 disaster assistance because of provisions specifying calendar year production that did not 

 coincide with actual crop harvesting timetables. 



Specialty crops are also different from major program crops in that disaster assistance 

 usually only covers the loss of the crop. While that sometimes works for annual specialty 

 crops, perennial crops are not afforded the same quality of protection. For example, 

 following the freeze in 1989 and Hurricane Andrew, citrus growers in Florida sought relief 

 through disaster assistance and the Tree Assistance Program (TAP). Disaster assistance did 

 not cover a farmer's long-term costs to replace and replant trees. While TAP provided some 

 funds, it covered only a fraction of those total costs and did not provide enough funds to 

 cover the long-term costs that are needed to return a farmer to the same level of production 

 prior to the death of a tree. Texas citrus growers benefitted from a private tree insurance 

 program following the devastating freezes in 1989 that could be a model for future protection 

 of perennial crops. 



Farm Bureau believes that many of the problems associated with disaster assistance 

 can be eliminated through a restructured crop insurance and disaster assistance plan. 



Farm Bureau policy supports the following specifics to reform disaster assistance and 

 crop insurance: 



"Crop disaster programs and crop insurance should be combined into a single 

 program and designed to obtain the greatest amount of participation. The 

 restructured crop insurance plan should provide coverage based upon dollars 

 per acre. Each participant could assess their liability and purchase the amount 

 of insurance necessary to provide desired coverage. A deductible should be 

 included to reduce premium costs and stop nuisance claims. The program 



