Are you continuing to follow the
conservation program established to protect highly erodible land and wetlands
on your farm or ranch? If so, you’ll be
in compliance with new requirements proposed for the 2013 Farm Bill that tie
protecting the land to eligibility for subsidies for crop insurance.
Since the 1985 Farm Bill, which
included so-called Sodbuster and Swampbuster requirements for protecting
fragile land, agricultural landowners have needed to meet minimal conservation
commitments to receive farm program payments.
Some of these payments are being reformed or eliminated in the 2013 Farm
Bill, and conservation requirements may now also be linked to crop insurance
subsidies.
I think this is an excellent
compromise to ensure that the public receives an environmental benefit in
exchange for helping farmers manage risk through crop insurance. (It also makes the public investment in crop
insurance more defendable.) Those who
are currently in compliance with Sodbuster and Swampbuster won’t need to do
anything differently. And those who need
to come into compliance will have a transition period to develop a conservation
plan for highly erodible land. With
enactment of the new bill, there will be an immediate restriction on draining
wetlands for those purchasing subsidized crop insurance
Under the proposed provisions in
the draft 2013 Farm Bill, self-certification of compliance with environmental
requirements would remain the same as would current enforcement procedures,
which would continue to be handled by the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
The crop insurance agents will have no role in enforcement. In addition, NRCS would give priority for
conservation planning to newly covered producers.
About 80 percent of farmers use
crop insurance as an essential risk management tool to manage price volatility
and weather variability. Farmers and
ranchers do pay a premium for the insurance, but about 60 percent of the actual
cost is covered by the taxpayers through USDA subsidies. So the public has a stake in crop insurance
and should receive an appropriate benefit linked to its investment. I believe that expecting farmers who purchase
crop insurance subsidized by taxpayers to meet the basic conservation
requirements that have been in place for more than 25 years is a reasonable
exchange.
Earlier this year we talked about
striking the right balance between managing risk without encouraging producers
to plant crops on land that is better left in grass or as wetlands. I believe the new provisions currently being
considered for the next farm bill do that.
Those farmers and ranchers who already have conservation plans to
protect highly erodible land and to preserve wetlands simply need to keep doing
what they’ve been doing to continue receiving crop insurance subsidies. Others will have a reasonable time to
establish a conservation plan and come into compliance.
Farmers and ranchers who have
opted out of farm program payments and drained wetlands or plowed highly
erodible land since 1985 but want to participate in USDA-subsidized crop
insurance program will need to mitigate the changes they’ve made to their land
as part of the process of developing a conservation plan. Landowners will still have the option to
participate in the crop insurance program if they choose not to make required
conservation changes to their land, but they will pay the full, unsubsidized
price of the insurance.
The provision linking
conservation and crop insurance will likely be debated this week in the Senate
version of the farm bill. It is the
result of a historic agreement struck between farm groups, conservation groups,
crop insurance advocates and the environmental community. This is an unusual convergence of thought
between groups that don’t always see eye-to-eye. However, they recognized that working farmers
need a strong, vibrant safety net offered through crop insurance and most of
those who own, manage and work the land want to be good stewards and are
willing to meet conservation objectives.
Both sides found agreement, and hopefully Congress can do the same.
I believe our lawmakers have it
within their grasp to develop a farm bill that supports farmers and ranchers in
making wise land use decisions and managing risks while at the same time
provides environmental benefits in exchange for the public’s investment in
agriculture. I hope you agree.
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
#30