With the 2012 Farm Bill, farm
programs will be changing. That seems
almost certain. So, if a minimum level
of conservation compliance is tied to programs that no longer exist, and market
conditions are ripe for fence-to-fence planting, how do we encourage protection
of wetlands and highly erodible land?
That’s the debate that is heating up this week on Capitol Hill.
This discussion is producing
extraordinary emotionalism in farm country and among conservationists and
environmentalists. The two groups have
been polarized for the better part of 20 years and have a tendency to talk past
each other rather than engaging in true dialogue to find a mutually agreeable
solution. That’s a shame, and it’s time
we worked together instead of at cross-purposes.
The simple answer to this
conundrum is finding another vehicle to hitch the conservation compliance wagon
to. The most likely program is crop insurance.
The 1985 farm bill established a
conservation floor with provisions commonly called swampbuster and
sodbuster. These are basically minimal environmental
provisions that prohibit farmers who want to participate in commodity support
programs from draining wetlands or planting on highly erodible land. Following these conservation requirements is
the quid pro quo for the taxpayer
support given through the commodity programs.
It was also required for those purchasing crop insurance until 1996.
In the mid-90’s, crop insurance
was not very popular, and to encourage more producers to purchase it, Congress
severed the link between participating in the insurance program and maintaining
minimal environmental protection.
However, 15 years later, crop insurance has become an essential risk
management tool for most farmers seeking to manage price volatility and weather
variability. About 80 percent of farmers
use it, and it works.
Farmers pay premiums for the
insurance, but taxpayers cover about 60 percent of the cost of each crop
insurance premium. That’s a substantial
investment, and taxpayers should receive an appropriate benefit. I suggest that continuing to fulfill the obligations
imposed by swampbuster and sodbuster would provide the public environmental benefit
sufficient to warrant ongoing crop insurance support from taxpayers.
This is an approach that I think
will find broad support, provided we address some specific concerns. For example, the insurance companies, wisely
and rightly, do not want to be held responsible for overseeing conservation
compliance. They need not worry. Congress has said clearly that USDA cannot
delegate oversight. Rather, farmers
should continue to self-certify compliance in protecting highly erodible land
as they currently do. The Farm Service
Agency and the Natural Resources Conservation Service would continue to handle
enforcement.
Of course, there are some producers
who oppose linkage of crop insurance purchases to environmental
requirements. Especially in the Midwest,
in states such as Kansas, Nebraska, Minnesota and the Dakotas, there is
significant pressure to plant more acres to grain. Additional acreage would only be available
through improved drainage. Farmers in
those areas fear “regulatory creep,” that somehow, someone will discover more
acres of wetlands on their maps and prohibit planting on those acres.
If we could agree that wetlands
designations made previously will stand, and the standard for conservation
compliance will continue to be the swampbuster and sodbuster requirements
established in 1985, then I think we could move forward.
Even as crop insurance has become
a farmer’s most important risk management tool, the taxpayers have increased
their investment substantially. And farmers
have benefited. Over the past three
years, more than $20 billion has been paid out through crop insurance and
disaster programs to cover agricultural losses. Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) has an
amendment to the farm bill currently under debate to re-link crop insurance and
conservation compliance. It is a good
amendment and should be adopted.
Linking crop insurance and
conservation can benefit multiple interests.
If conservation and environmental groups can join forces with farmers
and insurers, we can form a new alliance that can defend public investments in
both conservation and crop insurance. To be successful this alliance will need to
stop sniping at each other. This is an
approach that will strengthen sustainability while also improving
productivity. Let’s encourage Congress
to establish this linkage in the next farm bill.
About the author: Bruce I. Knight, Principal, Strategic Conservation Solutions, was the Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) from 2006 to 2009. From 2002 to 2006, Knight served as Chief of Natural Resources Conservation Service. The South Dakota native worked on Capitol Hill for Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, Rep. Fred Grandy, Iowa, and Sen. James Abdnor, South Dakota. In addition, Knight served as vice president for public policy for the National Corn Growers Association and also worked for the National Association of Wheat Growers. A third-generation rancher and farmer and lifelong conservationist, Knight operates a diversified grain and cattle operation using no-till and rest rotation grazing systems.
For more news go to: www.agri-pulse.com