| Volume I, Number 2 | May 1996 |
Craig Wilson had been renting some land from an elderly neighbor, farming it in addition to his own 200 acres, when he got the chance to buy the neighbor's entire 135-acre farm. Many of the farms in their part of northeastern Pennsylvania had been bought by housing developers, and both Craig and his neighbor wanted to keep the property as farmland. The land, although fertile and fairly level, had not been cropped very intensively. In fact, Craig says, his neighbor farmed "like it was the 1940s." So he could only guess at its potential, and at his own ability to manage this land in addition to his two other parcels and his small dairy herd. Would he be able to make enough profit to stay in the black? Although Craig had some off-farm income to help him during the transition, the new land needed to start paying for itself as soon as possible. He took the plunge and purchased the farm.
After a year of running his larger operation, Craig realized he needed some help organizing his enterprises and evaluating his natural resources potential. He had land in hay, land in a corn-small grain-hay rotation, and the new farm, which would have to be cropped for maximum production of corn if he wanted to keep up payments on it. His father had been a cooperator with the Conservation District in the 1950s, and had come up with a Resource Conservation Plan for one of the parcels of land, but it had never been updated. Craig wanted not only to maximize his income from this land, but also to take the best care of it he could.
The new property had hedgerows in some fields, extensive woodland and the potential for high-quality wildlife habitat. Hunters used the property for recreation, and Craig wanted to protect and enhance wildlife habitat if he could. He also hoped to make some money from the timber. For the crop-land, he had different concerns. While the previous owner had not used pesticides on his crops, he had not made any efforts to control erosion, either. Craig wanted to find a way of integrating conservation practices with more intensive farming.
His Soil and Water District Conservationist invited him to participate in Pennsylvania One Plan, a comprehensive farm planning process that relies on the cooperation of public and private advisors to help each farmer reach production, profit, and natural resource protection goals. (For more information about Pennsylvania One Plan, see page 5.) Craig agreed, seeing a possibility that through One Plan, he would be able to create a management system that would address all his enterprises and all his natural resource concerns.
The first step in the planning process was having the conservationist come out to help with erosion control plans. He worked out guidelines for crop rotations, and then he and Craig designed a system of strip-cropping, waterways and diversions that would adequately control erosion.
Craig knew some land clearing would be necessary to accomodate fields and strip cropping. During the One Plan process, Craig learned that the edge of wooded areas and hedgerows had significant wildlife impact. Since there was some ideal wildlife habitat on the farm, he decided to minimize the disturbance of this area, balancing additional cropland needs, strip cropping requirements and wildlife habitat.
A wildlife biologist from the Pennsylvania State Game Commission came out to the property and identified the hedgerows and wooded areas that were prime wildlife habitat and those that were less valuable. Craig would keep the best ones, including the areas that contained an animal travel lane, and remove the others to establish the fields and strips. They worked out a plan for managing the wooded areas, under which Craig would brush-hog the growth at the edges of the fields every other year, to provide edge effect while keeping the woody growth from shading his crops.
Craig was glad to hear that he wouldn't need to cut the hedgerows back every year -- the plan would save him work. The piles of brush and prunings would no longer be burned, but instead left to provide habitat for birds and small game. Mature trees in the hedgerow interiors would be cut for firewood. The hunters who use the land even agreed to manage the hedgerows by making the brush piles and cutting the firewood.
While Craig and the conservationist were designing the erosion-control system, they identified fields where it would not be safe to use Atrazine. Craig considers his use of pesticides "conservative," but he didn't want to risk contaminating the groundwater, especially now that there are so many families in the new housing developments drinking it. His One Plan paperwork could come in handy if his neighbors become concerned about his chemical use, since part of the program is helping farmers comply with all environmental regulations, and documenting their compliance.
Craig had thought that he could start bringing in some income from his new woodlots right away by clear-cutting some of the timber, and had a state forester visit as part of his One Plan process. The forester surprised him by recommending that he hold off on cutting down the trees. Their value could increase significantly over the next few years, and he gave Craig guidelines and a schedule for improving the stands and cutting selectively as trees reached optimum size, maximizing his financial return.
One of Craig's initial goals was to maximize profit on the new land, and for this part of the plan he turned to his crop consultant. He has been a member of a crop management association for a few years, and his crop rotation history for each of his fields is stored on the association's computer. Based on these previous years, and on Craig's production and profit goals, the consultant laid out the year's crops. These recommendations were checked against crop rotation recommendations made by the soil and water conservationist. The proposed cropping plans were not all in keeping with the initial soil conservation plan, but fortunately the conservationist's crop rotation recommendations had flexibility built into them.
This built-in flexibility is called a "matrix." It's an array of conservation of practices, specific to each area on a farm, that have been approved as ways to provide acceptable erosion control. For instance, if the crop consultant's recommendation for a given field is a third year of corn rather than a switch to small grains or hay, and the conservationist's recommendation is to grow corn no more than two years in a row, the matrix suggests a practice that will allow for a third year of corn. In Craig's case, the matrix prescribed a change to no-till for the third year of corn followed by a winter cover crop. Both Craig and his crop consultant appreciate this flexibility to make choices based on the weather or market prices while still protecting the soil and water quality.
Craig is glad he decided to take a chance and buy the new land. His different sources of income are all integrated into the new plan, and he has been able to keep up with the workload of managing the new farm by following the systematic approach that he and his advisors worked out. He has been able to preserve the land's old-fashioned quality -- the hedgerows, woods and wildlife -- while farming it more intensively and making a healthy profit. This year, he has seen a wide variety of wild animals living in his wooded areas -- deer, rabbits, game birds, even bears. "They take their share," he notes, but the hunters bring him meat for his freezer, and his Thanksgiving turkey comes from his own land.
For Craig, his whole farm plan works well as the basis for organizing all his natural resource concerns and management information. The plan is structured around his goals and ideas; he thinks of it as his plan, not just an accumulation of agency recommendations. It feels good, Craig says, "to protect and conserve the land, the water quality and the wildlife for future generations" -- while using them to provide a living for himself.
--Jill MacKenzie
The U.S. Farm Bill recently signed into law by President Clinton creates significant opportunities to further the use of comprehensive farm planning. Two new conservation incentive programs in particular could be boosts for the concept.
The most extensive incentive-based conservation program ever adopted became law in the new Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). Designed to consolidate a number of existing programs, it will pay farmers up to 75% of the cost of soil and water protection measures. Funding is set at $130 million for 1996 and $200 million for each of the next six years, using guaranteed funds. Farmers will apply for 5 to 10 year contracts which provide cost-share and incentive payments of up to $10,000 per year, or $50,000 total, for any combination of structural or land management practices. Livestock- related practices will get half of the funds.
EQIP will be targeted to areas where significant water and soil problems exist and where state and local assistance is focused. Congress decided not to designate the Great Lakes Basin or other regions as conservation priority areas, instead leaving it to the Secretary of Agriculture to decide. Strong direction was given to "maximize the environmental benefit per dollar expended" and use the lowest-cost options available for such practices as manure management, pest management, and erosion control.
The law requires farmers to submit a conservation plan for USDA approval, but does not give clear direction about what should be in those plans. (See page 4.) To avoid duplicative paperwork, the Secretary can approve existing conservation compliance plans, Conservation Reserve plans, or Wetlands Reserve plans if they serve the purposes of EQIP.
The law expressly allows non-agency people to develop EQIP plans: "The process of writing, developing and assisting in the implementation of EQIP plans shall be open to individuals in agribusiness, including but not limited to agricultural producers, representatives of agricultural cooperatives, agricultural input retail dealers and certified crop advisers."
A new pilot program may provide the best opportunity to shape a more full blown comprehensive farm planning process. The Conservation Farm Option authorizes $197.5 million over seven years for innovative projects -- to be selected by the Secretary -- which will provide farmers a one program/one farm plan/one check option. With an approved conservation plan, farmers would get combined commodity program and environmental incentive payments, including EQIP and CRP, for ten years. This option could provide major funding opportunities for creative ten-year comprehensive farm plans in selected areas.
Other parts of the farm bill, while not directly related to farm planning, provide a policy context which may be favorable for farm planning. The new "Freedom to Farm" commodity program will give farmers the planting flexibility they have been seeking for a number of reasons, including the desire to rotate crops and use fewer polluting inputs. The last-minute addition of haying and grazing to the list of eligible crops was a major victory for conservation advocates. Farmers will now have to develop their own longer-term choices of what to plant instead of "planting for the program." A whole farm plan could be just the tool some will need.
Two new research programs might support farm planning. The new Fund for Rural America will provide USDA with $100 million per year for rural development and a competitive research grant program for several listed purposes, including some that relate to farm planning research and education, such as to: "conserve and enhance natural resources; reduce economic and health risks; increase farm profitability; and enhance animal agricultural resources."
Congress also created the National Natural Resources Conservation Foundation, a charitable nonprofit corporation to fund research and educational activities relating to conservation on private lands. Funded at $1 million annually from 1997-1999, the new foundation will be administered by a 9-member board to be appointed by the Secretary.
As anyone knows who has ever compared a real program to its enabling legislation, agencies have much latitude to shape a program. In the writing of rules, the adoption of procedures, the release of funding, and even the way staff are trained to deliver a program to the end user, the agency can make or break the intended purpose of a program. Often what makes the critical difference is the involvement of interested and constructive advocates who stay involved during the critical early implementation phase. Watch for opportunities to give input, advice, and feedback to the appropriate agencies, such as the Natural Resource Conservation Service. In late April, NRCS hosted nine "listening forums" to gather grassroots input on implementation of conservation programs.
--Loni Kemp
To be eligible for EQIP, farmers must submit "for approval, a plan of operations that incorporates such conservation practices, and is based on such principles, as the Secretary considers necessary to carry out the program, including a description of structural practices and land management practices to be implemented and the objectives to be met by the plan's implementation." This is the sum total of the law's language regarding the plans.
Congress often accompanies a law with "report language," an explanation by the conference committee of what their intent was. EQIP farm plans became very controversial during final bill negotiations. Included in the Congressional Record of March 25, 1996 are relatively lengthy instructions for USDA that provide slightly more direction with three descriptions of conservation plans.
First they said, "It is the Managers' intent that the process used to develop EQIP plans be a simplified and flexible approach to assist producers to work toward better resource management. EQIP (sic) are not intended to be whole-farm plans."
A second paragraph describes plan content: "The plan may contain an implementation schedule, a description of the structural and management practices, cropping patterns, farm or ranch resources, and other information, as the Secretary determines is necessary, to facilitate the objectives of this provision."
Then a third paragraph includes a more thorough description. ". . . producers may begin the plan development process, on their own initiative, by analyzing their needs for long-term farm or ranch operations. The producers should assess the areas of their operations that face the most serious problems associated with soil, water, and related resources, including grazing lands, wetlands, and wildlife habitat. The producers should identify alternative conservation practices and select the best management practices to meet their needs and the conservation incentives of EQIP. The plan should be designed, to the extent practicable, to help producers comply with local, state and federal laws."
In the end, USDA must write the rules. While EQIP may not be the program to launch comprehensive farm planning, nevertheless, USDA has the opportunity to allow farmers who want to use whole farm plans to do so, and to require of all farmers a minimum plan that at least begins the process of encouraging farmers to analyze their choices and work towards their goals.
--Loni Kemp
Following a survey of interested farmers and a meeting this spring, the Great Lakes Basin Comprehensive Farm Planning Network steering committee members are coming to a consensus about what should constitute a whole farm plan. Here are minimum criteria for planning processes, plan content, and plan outcomes.
The Henry A. Wallace Institute for Alternative Agriculture has just released a report titled What It Takes to `Get to Yes' for Whole Farm Planning Policy. The report takes a look at whole farm planning in a policy context. Authors David Ervin and Katherine Smith ask what goals should guide farm planning policy, who will lead policy implementation, what incentives will stimulate adoption of whole farm planning, and how performance will be monitored, reviewing the full range of options that emerge for each of these key decisions.
What It Takes to `Get to Yes' contains the results of a roundtable exercise in which Great Lakes Basin Comprehensive Farm Planning Network steering committee members Tom Guthrie and John Lamb participated. The roundtable group also included representatives of government agencies and environmental groups, sustainable agriculture advocates, and private crop consultants. Roundtable participants identified features they considered essential to comprehensive farm plans. The priorities of government, environmental/sustainable agriculture, and industry representatives reflected very different agendas for these three groups.
The concept of `getting to yes' means resolving conflicts by concentrating on the common interests of groups with different positions or objectives. The authors of this report believe their work outlines ways to "capitalize on the shared priorities of industry, public interest, and government stakeholding groups." Among these paths to reconciling the interests of various participants in the comprehensive farm planning debate are early involvement of locally-based stakeholders, close collaboration among federal agencies, definition of a role for the private sector, and incentive programs for farmers.
What It Takes to `Get to Yes' for Whole Farm Planning Policy is available for $5.00 from the Wallace Institute, 9200 Edmonston Road, Suite 117, Greenbelt, Maryland 20770, (301) 441-8777.
Comprehensive farm planning has been quietly gathering steam in Pennsylvania, thanks to a five-year-old planning process. Pennsylvania One Plan is a cooperative public-private effort to help farmers develop an integrated management plan. It emphasizes coordination of recommendations by various agencies and agricultural advisors to eliminate conflicts in previous single-issue plans.
Farmers are invited to participate in the program by a representative of one of the government agencies that normally advise them, typically an NRCS conservationist or a conservation district planner. If a farmer decides to go ahead with One Plan, a meeting is set up between the farmer, the farmer's private consultants, and local resource specialists. Foresters, conservationists, wildlife biologists and other advisors visit the farm and make recommendations. They organize their ideas into an integrated plan that addresses the farmer's concerns and goals.
The farmer receives a summary sheet outlining the laws and regulations that have been addressed in the plan. Conservation districts and NRCS provide written certification that the plan, if implemented, will comply with Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law and USDA conservation compliance requirements, respectively. Most regulatory agencies do not guarantee limited liability, but do take into account "good faith" efforts if farmers follow their plans.
The key to coming up with a workable whole farm plan, says Barry Frantz, who coordinates the One Plan program, is finding out what the farmer really wants to do with the farm business and the farm land. Once the farmer sets economic and environmental goals, the One Plan process does not follow a standardized format; instead, the agency representatives and crop consultants discuss options and formulate recommendations for achieving the farmer's objectives. Participants in the program are encouraged to be open to new methods and ideas as they plan for natural resource protection and improved profitability.
Many of the farmers who have participated in One Plan have already taken part in other conservation programs. Mr. Frantz feels that when these farmers find their profitability increasing as a result of the planning process, other farmers will be drawn to the program.
Similarly, farm advisors with strong commitments to cooperating with each other on this kind of planning have made the program successful and attracted a high level of farmer participation in a number of Pennsylvania counties. In other areas, where personnel are not as comfortable with the comprehensive planning approach, participation has been lower, but should increase as people gain more familiarity with and confidence in the process.
--Jill MacKenzie
A comprehensive farm plan is a long-term tool to keep farm operators and landowners focused on the management of their inventoried resources, protecting water and other natural resources from degradation. It includes:
INVENTORY of farm resources, including soil tests and maps, cropping plans, economic data, and farm site information.
GOALS for profitability, pollution prevention, production and long-term ecosystem enhancement.
ANALYSIS of management options, identifying problems and opportunities in the context of regulatory problems.
STRATEGY for putting the plan into action, as well as to monitor and evaluate how the plan is working.
Comprehensive farm planning allows farmers to take a proactive approach to improving farm profitability, environmental health, and quality of life. It will encourage farmers to:
LEARN more about alternatives for protecting health, safety and the environment.
REDUCE environmental liability.
PROTECT and enhance the value of farm assets.
DEMONSTRATE farmers' role as good stewards.
IMPLEMENT cost-effective conservation measures that increase profit.
ADDRESS multiple issues simultaneously, such as productivity, profitability, environmental impact and conservation.
The Minnesota Project
MISA Home Page