This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

prairies and farm programs

In response to my last posting about tree-planting on CRP riparian pasture 
prairies,  Andy pointed out that the language of the riparian pasture CRP 
program specifically aims at putting woody cover along creeks.   So repealing 
the tree-planting requirement could necessitate broadening or changing the 
purpose of the riparian pasture CRP program.  This brings up two questions we 
face as prairie advocates.

(1)  Should we work to amend existing USDA programs that don't value or 
protect prairies, or work for new programs that do?   Which approach for 
which program(s) will be most effective?  

(2)  How can we change/offset the direct and indirect USDA incentives to 
destroy prairies, given real-world behavior?   In theory, landowners and 
agency staff might limit enrollment in the riparian pasture CRP program to 
pastures where woody plantings would be beneficial and appropriate.   

But in reality, many landowners will enroll land in any available program if 
that program offers sufficient financial benefits (which isn't surprising).  
Below is an insightful posting which discusses the effects of USDA financial 
incentives on prairies (from the Farm Bill listserve).

***
Subj:    Re: Conservation Compliance
Date:   08/24/2000 12:41:11 PM Central Daylight Time
From:   MCGUIW@mail.conservation.state.mo.us (William McGuire)
To: WMITZR@aol.com, fb-net@fb-net.org

Terry, I'll offer some comments.

First, money drives much of what happens on private land including whether it 
is farmed or left idle.  In a free market and with no income-supports, 
farmers would farm lands that were clearly likely to be profitable.  But, 
infuse the system with income-supports (crop insurance, disaster payments, 
AMTA payments, etc.) which improve the odds of coming out ahead by farming 
'risky' land and that land will be farmed.   

Positive and proactive payments, if equal to or greater than the 'promise of 
income' produced by actual yield/price at market plus government 
income-supports, can result in idled farmland for environmental reasons.  
But, there are two problems with this:

1.  The amount of USDA funding for positive/proactive programs is dwarfed by 
funding for Crop Insurance, AMTA payments, disaster payments, etc.  

2.  Eligibility requirementf for positive/proactive payments for programs 
like CRP are, in some instances, encouraging people to break-out and farm 
environmentally sensitive areas (riparian areas, prairie, etc.) long enough 
to qualify for enrollment in CRP.  The land is enrolled but replaced with 
lower quality cover than was there to begin with.

Positive/proactive approaches will not acheive the intended resource 
sustainability until funding levels achieve a more equitable balance with the 
income-supports that are rolled out.  Money will drive most land-use 
decisions and if money for income-supports exceeds that of the money 
available for positive/proactive programs then 'risky' land will continue to 
be farmed.  And, unless program eligibility (the positive programs like CRP) 
blocks enrollment of lands that 'were in prairie but farmed the last 2 
years', then prairie will be farmed and enrolled in CRP if that is more 
profitable for the farmer than using the prairie for grazing/hay production.

In addition, it seems logical that income supports, that encourage the 
farming of otherwise risky and marginally productive lands, simply stimulate 
overproduction and the oversupply problems that keep all farmers beat down 
and unable to sustain the farm without help.

In this kind of climate, regulatory measures are often put forth as a means 
of providing a check and balance to ensure that key lands are not affected.  
The problem with this is that regulation is negative and people fight it and 
strive to uncover ways around it (and almost always succeed).

The answer is in continuation and better funding of the positive/proactive 
programs like WRP and CRP as well as a different slant on 'income support' 
for producers.  Instead of paying government subsidies that have the effect 
of stimulating a continuation of the 'farm marginal land/oversupply/low 
prices cycle', convert subsidies to compensate producers for the 
environmental products from the land.  This would provide income from leaving 
prairie as prairie, maintaining riparian buffers along streams, having 
wetlands, utilizing no-till, establishing filter strips (with wildife 
friendly grasses), etc.

In a nutshell, current iapproaches encourage maximization of production on as 
much land as practical.  A different slant toward 'compensation for 
conservation' could work wonders toward achieving sustainability of natural 
resources in concert with better crop prices through less production on lands 
ill suited to production.  

Bill McGuire
Private Land Programs Supervisor
Missouri Department of Conservation
P.O. Box 180
Jefferson City, MO  65109
***

Cindy Hildebrand
grantridge@aol.com
Ames, IA  50010

"All the charm and mystery of that prairie world comes back to me, and I ache 
with an illogical desire to recover it and hold it, and preserve it in some 
form for my children.   It seems an injustice that they should miss it...."  
(Hamlin Garland)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE PRAIRIE
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index