|
|
|
Committees take different approaches to conservationWorking lands vs. land retirement at heart of debate By Sara Wyant Sportsmen or farmers? Pheasants or cattle? The choices aren't quite that clear cut, but a fundamental debate is brewing over whether or not the 2007 farm bill should devote more conservation funds to land retirement programs, which are favored by millions of hunters and fishermen, or "working lands" programs traditionally favored by more farmers and ranchers. The outcome will have a major impact on economic activity throughout rural America. Work on the conservation title started with a subcommittee markup in the House Agriculture Committee on May 22. But even before then, two distinctly different approaches seemed to be emerging. Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin is focused on providing more funding for programs that provide cost-sharing and incentive payments for farmers and ranchers. He would combine the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) with the Conservation Security Program and Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) as part of a new Comprehensive Stewardship Incentives Program (CSIP). This program would provide producers with "one-stop shopping" for conservation programs, a streamlined application process, and ensure consistent, nation-wide enrollment--allowing producers to plan ahead. The program would significantly simplify the CSP and change it to an acreage-based program that would be offered in every county, every year. Harkin would like to see around 15 million acres enrolled each year into the new CSIP, according to sources attending the briefing. House delays CSP In the House, Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-MN, called for increasing funding for one extremely popular major working lands program, EQIP, while effectively neutering another: the CSP. The Conservation Subcommittee's initial draft of the new conservation title would delay new CSP enrollments until 2012 and shift $1.1 billion to pay for other conservation programs. In general, the House Subcommittee's conservation title continues many of the same conservation programs currently in existence. Funding for several programs would be expanded--but much of that expansion is contingent on budget reserve funds becoming available. For example, the draft calls for $300 million to be authorized for the Farm and Ranchland Protection Program from 2008 to 2013. However, it drops to $150 million for 2008 if a $20 billion "reserve" fund in the budget resolution does not materialize. If "reserve" funds are available, the EQIP program would also receive $2 billion in annual funding. Balance shifting Historically, the largest portion of federal conservation dollars have been invested in land retirement programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). The CRP, which originated as a supply management program, became immensely popular with sportsmen, who view these idled acres as terrific opportunities for building wildlife populations and enhancing their hunting and fishing experiences. But that balance started to shift with a big boost to working lands conservation in the 2002 farm bill and the creation of the new CSP program. According to the Congressional Research Service, (see chart), the portion of federal funds invested in working lands has increased from about 11 percent in 2001 to almost 40 percent in 2006. But the total investment in working lands conservation is still almost a billion dollars lower. Rep. Jerry Moran, R-KS, is one of several Agriculture Committee members who is concerned about the lack of economic activity associated with idling acres. "What will be left on Main Street?" he asked during a recent committee meeting, if we continue focusing on land retirement programs. Moran recently proposed an amendment that would bridge some of the gaps between working lands and land retirement interests. His proposal would allow CRP acres to be converted back into production, allowing the harvest of cellulosic biomass in exchange for a reduced rental rate and restrictions on disturbing bird nesting populations. "This would allow us to capture renewable energy markets without losing environmental gains," he explained. His amendment was later withdrawn, with a pledge from Subcommittee Chairman Tim Holden, D-PA, to consider the merits during full committee consideration of the 2007 farm bill. At the same time, several interest groups will be working equally hard to make sure that any new conservation funds--even those that focus on working lands-- recognize the needs of the fish and wildlife community. The Agriculture and Wildlife Working Group (AWWG) of the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership recently weighed in on a proposed funding increase in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). "We want to be sure state level priorities and the proper focus are applied to this funding," said Jen Mock Schaeffer of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and AWWG co-chair. "It is important that fish and wildlife see the benefits of this increased funding and the provision's language should reflect that." Editor's note: Columnist Sara Wyant is president of Agri-Pulse Communications, Inc. and publishes a bi-weekly newsletter, Agri-Pulse, on food and farm policy. For more information, you can e-mail her at Agripulse@aol.com. B 3 5/28/07 1 Star WK Date: 5/24/07
Copyright/Privacy
Copyright 1995-2009. High Plains Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. Any republishing of these pages, including electronic reproduction of the editorial archives or classified advertising, is strictly prohibited. If you have questions or comments you can reach us at High Plains Journal 1500 E. Wyatt Earp Blvd., P.O. Box 760, Dodge City, KS 67801 or call 1-800-452-7171. Email: webmaster@hpj.com |
Market Snapshot Inside Futures |
