Proposed Conservation Security Program Rules a Disappointment
January
9, 2004
By Loni Kemp
At first, the US Department of Agriculture was hailed for finally issuing proposed rules to guide implementation of the Conservation Security Program. Touted as the most innovative program in the 2002 farm bill, the Conservation Security Program languished for a year and a half while the Administration drafted rules, which were published on January 2, 2004. Supported by nearly every sustainable agriculture, farm, commodity, environmental, wildlife, and conservation organization, the Conservation Security Program is envisioned to reward farmers with financial incentives for conservation on working lands, becoming the model program for a new policy of green payments for agriculture.
Unfortunately, as the details of the rules emerged, the disappointment grew. Citing budget limitations, USDA has added layer upon layer of restrictions to the basic program, leaving some wondering if any farmer could qualify, or would even want to apply considering how payments have been slashed. For example, instead of being open to all farmers and ranchers, USDA would only offer the program in selected priority watersheds during limited sign-up periods. Instead of helping farmers achieve conservation goals, USDA would not allow them to apply until they had already solved soil and water resource concerns. And instead of rewarding high performance, enhanced payments would be restricted to a small portion of actual farmer costs.
In addition to these limitations on watersheds, prior conservation practices, and payments, the rule also calls for other severe restrictions. Even if a farm is located in one of the selected watersheds, it would still have to qualify for unspecified "enrollment categories" in order to be selected. Base per-acre payments would be slashed by ninety percent. Cost share payments would be limited to a "substantially reduced list of practices" and rates "considerably lower" than other cost share programs. There is also no provision for contract renewal.
Of even more concern are all the provisions left out of the rule. Left for future determination by USDA are the criteria and actual selection of watersheds; the list of eligible practices and cost share rates; additional requirements beyond the resources of concern; enhanced payment activities and amounts; and enrollment categories and subcategories.
On a positive note, USDA's proposal for water quality and soil quality to be the initial resources of concern was greeted with widespread approval. These two resources would require good management of nutrients, pesticides, sediment, pathogens, and soil organic matter, resulting in significant environmental performance.
Why would USDA attempt to smother this promising program, which Secretary Veneman touts as a program to reward the best and motivate the rest? The answer evidently revolves around funding. Rather than writing rules for a national, comprehensive conservation program as was the intent of Congress in the farm bill, the Administration designed this rule for the very short term, looking only to fiscal year 2004 when funds admittedly are limited.
In fact, the omnibus appropriations bill now awaiting final approval by the Senate contains two provisions: one limits funding to $41 million in 2004, while the other provision lifts the multi-year funding cap of $3.77 billion imposed last year in a budget maneuver to pay for disaster assistance. What this means is that by October 2004 when a new fiscal year starts, the Conservation Security Program will have significantly more funding, allowing for open enrollment. The Conservation Security Program could then operate as Congress originally intended when they passed the law, whereby all farmers who qualify by implementing approved conservation plans can be guaranteed incentive payments, in the same way commodity payments are guaranteed.
USDA notes in the rules that they may issue a supplementary rule at such time as Congress acts to remove the cap, which could be as early as late January. What they don't say is how many of the onerous restrictions in the proposed rule would set a precedent for an expanded program.
The public will have 60 days, until March 2, 2004, to comment on the draft rules, and USDA will then have a chance to revise the final language. The USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service will hold a number of listening sessions around the country, and accept comments from the public by email or mail. Local conservation offices are expected to administer the program by summer 2004.
The rule is posted
on the Natural Resources Conservation Service website at www.nrcs.usda.gov.
For more information about CSP and the Minnesota Project, see www.mnproject.org/csp.