On February 28, the Senate
Committee on Agriculture farm bill hearing will focus on conservation and the
environment. I think the most important
question to consider is how can we get the most conservation for the money we
have to spend?
We can begin by consolidating
programs, reducing both administrative costs and time and energy spent by
farmers. As programs have proliferated,
they’ve become too complicated and too prescriptive. A farmer shouldn’t have to hire a consultant
to figure out which conservation program to apply for. Make it simple. Clearly differentiate between the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and the Conservation
Stewardship Program (CSP). Establish
EQIP as the “fix-it” program and CSP as the “management” program. Add an easement program and that’s
sufficient.
Next, downsize the Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) and use the savings to adequately fund other conservation
programs. As I suggested in this blog
last June and again in September, drop CRP from 30 million acres to 20
million. Protect the most fragile 10
million acres, the most marginal land, with filter strips, contour strips,
grass waterways and buffers. But permit
grazing or forage crops on the other 10 million acres, at a reduced payment,
and you’ll retain most of the wildlife, soils and water benefits currently
afforded under CRP. Then send the
remaining 10 million acres—largely prime farmland—back into production and encourage
farmers to use no-till and precision agriculture to responsibly manage these
lands. Releasing these acres will also
help young farmers find land to rent so they can break into agriculture.
Then put money saved from a
smaller CRP where it will do the most good—on working lands. Conservation should help us produce food and
fiber to feed and clothe people with the smallest possible environmental
footprint. We need to invest in
practices, activities and efforts that have both environmental and economic
returns. Further, conservation
investments today are more valuable than those made tomorrow; so reduce
cost-share support in the out-years of a contract to encourage completion of
contracts in a timely manner.
Let’s provide the support
necessary to lead to a beneficial change in practice—just enough to tip the
scales in favor of environmentally sound approaches. A minimal conservation standard—such as swampbuster
and sodbuster requirements—should be a given and tied to both basic farm
program support and crop insurance support. It’s also important to keep the
emphasis on the main things—water, air and soil decisions that impact millions
upon millions of acres rather than on concerns that will have impact on small
acreages such as hoop houses and organics transition. Let’s leave production
choices—conventional/organic/natural—to farmers and their customers. Our conservation programs should be neutral
on these matters as well as farm size beyond whatever Congress decides on
payment limits and farm organization structure.
We also need more research on
conservation, focusing on cover crops and on double crops, on improving manure
utilization and searching for a technological solution to legacy nutrients in
sediments at the bottoms of our lakes and streams. We need to realize that production efficiency
and conservation are the same thing. Additionally,
we need to continue to improve and invest in Conservation Innovation Grants so
that they form a bridge for conservation research.
While we’re looking at research,
we also need to orient USDA’s research programs to include support for life cycle
assessments for various commodities and specialty crops to scientifically
evaluate how to improve productive efficiency while decreasing the
environmental footprint of the food production system. In addition, let’s search hard for a better
means of measuring environmental outcomes—maybe something as radical as measurement
of soil carbon as an indicator of soil health.
Consider doubling the number of Conservation Effects Assessment Project
(CEAP) data points and put this information in a fully open-source format to
facilitate information exchange for those involved in life cycle assessments.
We can do more with less if we
consolidate programs and target the funds we have toward working lands and the
research we’ll need to keep improving conservation and productivity. Now is the time to make those changes.
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.