There’s no doubt that the farm bill will dominate the agendas of conservation groups this year. As boards of directors and agency leaders huddle over the next couple of months to firm up their priorities and plan their lobbying campaigns, some basic themes are already emerging. Partners tapped into the insight of a few Washington insiders keeping a close eye on the next farm bill— especially its conservation title.
Not surprisingly, the core concern is funding. Keira Franz, director of Legislative Affairs for the National Association of Conservation Districts (NACD), points out that there’s less money available for the next farm bill than there was in 2002 when the last one was written. Budget reconciliation, disaster assistance and annual appropriations chip away at the funding baseline even further. “And there are always more interests coming to the table for inclusion in the farm bill,” she adds—groups vying to fund programs supporting everything from produce production to renewable energy.
Great, under-funded programs are a longstanding part of farm bill development. The innovative Conservation Security Program (CSP) introduced in the 2002 farm bill has only reached farmers and ranchers in 12 percent of the nation’s watersheds so far. Three out of every four applicants for conservation programs are turned down due to lack of funding, according to Ralph Grossi, president of the American Farmland Trust (AFT). Application backlogs for federal conservation programs—from the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Grassland Reserve Program, the Farm and Ranchlands Protection Program and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program—totaled more than $2.5 billion at the end of fiscal year 2005, Grossi notes.
Meeting new challenges
Marker Bills
“Never before have so many groups been engaged in the process so early on,” says Ralph Grossi, president of the American Farmland Trust, of the mounting discussion surrounding the 2007 farm bill. Even before the comprehensive farm bill takes center stage, Grossi points out that two pending bills contain significant conservation recommendations. Grossi calls them “marker bills” and urges conservation-minded voters to study them, comment on them and use the debates over that legislation to start setting Congress’ sights on the shape of conservation policy that will frame the farm bill debate.
The Healthy Farms, Foods and Fuel Act (HR 6064) doubles incentives for drinking water protection by farmers, expands annual loan guarantees for renewable energy projects on farms, earmarks funds to protect wetlands and working farmlands, and expands access for schoolchildren and the elderly to nutritious, locally grown food.
The Equitable Agriculture Today (EAT) for a Healthy America Act (HR 6193) promotes the production and marketing of fruit, vegetable and tree nut crops. On the conservation side, the bill opens up access to conservation programs to producers whom bill sponsors say are often left behind by commodity-oriented programs.
“We’re at a critical juncture in U.S. agriculture,” Grossi says. “I would argue that if we do not get involved now and create a policy that works for the conservation and agricultural interests, others will do it for us.”
|
Demand that handily outstrips funding presents a significant challenge to the crafters of the next bill. The flip side of that challenge is making sure that the programs that are created or maintained are accessible and relevant to the broad range of landowners—conservation “customers”—in the field.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Chief Arlen Lancaster applies a series of tests to each program to help ensure that the suite of conservation tools in development will make the most of the funding they claim.
“Farm policy must be equitable, it must be predictable and it must be beyond challenge,” Lancaster says, citing Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns’ established priorities.
“When I look at our programs, there are a few tests I would add,” Lancaster notes. “Accessibility of our programs, making our programs easy for landowners, for partners and for ourselves; structured to be able to meet new challenges; and having the technical and financial assistance to meet those challenges as they emerge.
“What’s important to me is that we continue to have a number of tools in the toolbox,” he adds. “Landowners ought to have a variety of tools they can use to reach their conservation goals.”
Of course, the first step in putting conservation practices into action is navigating through the application process. Franz says discussion in Washington is centered on streamlining programs—perhaps creating a single application that can access several programs, or grouping programs together to allow landowners to pick through their options of, say, land retirement programs through a single process.
But the association is wary of losing programs in the effort to make them easier to handle, she notes. “NACD’s goal is to ensure that all customers can access conservation programs,” Franz says, “and that in efforts to look for efficiencies that we do not lose the intent of any of the conservation programs, or the financial assistance associated with those programs—rather, improve a landowner’s ability to participate and reduce unnecessary paperwork.”
Just as important as putting projects into action, it’s vital to be able to tally the results, says Lancaster. “We have to make sure we have ways to quantify the benefits of these programs,” he says. “We’re responsible to taxpayers, and we also want to be better able to tell our story.”
Extending NRCS’s reach
Both NRCS and NACD agree that locally led conservation efforts and access to technical assistance are key factors in the success of the nation’s conservation efforts. NRCS Chief Lancaster says strengthening the Technical Service Provider (TSP) program introduced in the 2002 farm bill will help boost the effectiveness of the ’07 law.
Lancaster acknowledges that market forces have posed problems in focusing the help of third-party technical providers in certain areas. “TSPs aren’t available everywhere,” he notes. “In many cases, TSPs are going to where the business is.”
Another factor dampening interest among some prospective TSPs is the not-to-exceed (NTE) rate for technical service jobs—NRCS’s maximum payment rates for projects conducted by TSPs. Critics have pointed out that the NTE rate is unrealistically low; others have complained that it’s difficult to engage in multi-year projects with TSPs when TSP funding is uncertain from year to year.
Lancaster is quick to note that NRCS’s spending on the TSP program was $163 million—$18 million over the original budget—and points out that the NTE rate doesn’t cap a project, it simply caps NRCS’s contribution to the TSP’s fee. If a project needs a financial boost or longer-term budget, other funds can secure the TSP’s time and help.
The Chief says his priority is on increasing access to TSPs. “How do we reach out to groups that could become TSPs?” he asks. “I want to make sure we strengthen our relationships with the people who can help us. I hear from a lot of conservation groups that say, ‘we want to help you with what you’re doing.’”
Keeping working farmland at work
 |
Technical assistance in the field is a key element of the success of federally funded conservation programs, and the focus of much of the effort to bolster the conservation title of the next farm bill.
Photo courtesy of NRCS |
Many conservation proponents are strongly emphasizing programs geared toward keeping agricultural land in production. “Farms must remain in agriculture production and be economically viable operations for farmers to undertake additional conservation practices,” Franz points out.
American Farmland Trust’s Grossi endorses a cooperative conservation program that would allow producer groups and organizations to seek federal conservation grants, and a conservation loan guarantee program that would help finance additional conservation practices on working farmland. “Farmers are as concerned about the land and the environment as anyone, but farming often doesn’t provide profit margins that allow them to make substantial environmental investments on their own,” he says.
AFT’s detailed Agenda 2007: A New Framework and Direction for U.S. Farm Policy outlines the organization’s vision for the next farm bill. That vision includes more money for conservation easements, including doubling funding for the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program and establishing a federal matching fund to boost state and local government support of farmland protection.
Of course, it all requires money—both money allocated in the initial bill, then money appropriated by Congress to carry it out. “The conservation provisions in the 2002 farm bill were the most robust ever enacted, and the programs are clearly improving the environment, but think about what could have been achieved had Congress and the Administration fully funded the programs at the levels that were negotiated and agreed to in the 2002 farm bill,” Grossi says.
Keeping the pressure on Congress to support a strong conservation title requires action from the ag conservation community, says Franz. “We in conservation need a strong, positive message about the benefits of conservation and the importance of technical assistance, conservation planning, and voluntary, incentive-based, locally led conservation programs,” she says.
“We need to spread the word about all of the great projects underway,” she adds. “Don’t take for granted that everyone knows.”
