Call On 6297143586 Pimpri Chinchwad Call Girls In All Pune 24/7 Provide Call...
ย
July 29-1030-Andrew Manale
1. 2018 Farm Bill and
Conservation
An Assessment
2019 SWCS Annual Conference Pittsburgh
Andrew Manale
USEPA (retired)
2. Criteria for Evaluation
โข New goals or objectives
โข Does the FB expand the definition of agricultural conservation?
โข Does it establish new priorities for funding or interventions
โข Does it expand conservation through new funding or leveraging?
โข Does it create new tools for conservation and hence new
opportunities to improve or address unaddressed concerns?
โข Wedge projects or Pilots
โข Change landowner/manager incentives for what practices to adopt
3. New Goals and Objectives: an explanation
โข Conservation programs must counteract negative effects
โข commodity or other federal programs
โข market forces or financial risk
โข environmental conditions
โข Floods, wildlife habitat, droughts
โข Are there financial incentives for monoculture, cropping marginal lands,
using pesticides and fertilizers as insurance?
โข Conservation often pays farmers not to do bad
โข Reward good behavior
โข Climate change is ongoingโadjustments may always be necessary
4. New What the 2018 FB Does
Goals and Objectives
โข Recognizes climate and energy problems
โข However it switches mandatory funding to discretionary
โข Makes future funding more uncertain thereby discouraging participation
โข Increased focus on increasing carbon levels in soils
โข Supports expansion of renewables to more than just ethanol
โข Biomass
โข Carbon sequestration in soils
But No New Money or Incentives
5. New Goals and Objectives (contโd)
โข Shifts funding incentives from rewarding farmers for doing
good conservation (CSP)โproducing amenities
โข Eliminate CSP
โข To more funding for assisting farmers not to do bad (EQIP)โ
reducing harm
โข Some funding from CSP shifts to EQIP
6. Does It Expand Conservation through New
Funding or Leveraging?
โข No
โข $687 billion is consistent with 2014 FB funding
โข Shifts more $ out of mandatory to discretionary (annual
appropriations)
โข No new major programs
โข 2018 FB may actually significantly reduce conservation
7. Does It Expand Conservation through New
Funding or Leveraging? (contโd)
โข Undermines CRP
โข Reduces general enrollment per acre payment for CRP to below
county market rate
โข CRP is by far most successful ag conservation program with
possible exception of conservation compliance
โข CRPโs traditional focus--marginal lands
โข Reduced funding--may dissuade farmers from putting these lands
into CRP, ie. enroll in crop insurance and continue cropping
โข Weakens wildlife protections by opening the window for grazing
during nesting season
8. Does It Expand Conservation through New
Funding or Leveraging? (contโd)
โข Makes opting out of CRP easier
โข Reduces per acre payments for farmable wetlands program
โข Possibly allows EQIP funds to be used for increased drainage (?)
9. New tools?
โข No new tools for conservation
โข No dedicated funding for monitoring and assessment, i.e. accountability projects
โข CEAP arose out of the 2002 farm bill
โข How much money is needed to achieve conservation objectives
โข What has worked
โข What has not
โข What can we do differently
โข This Farm Bill ignores findings of CEAP
โข Weakens existing tools
โข Relaxes enforcement of Swampbuster
โข increases loopholes
10. Summary / Conclusion
โข 2018 Farm Bill is largely and at best a status quo farm bill
โข Possibly makes achieving sustainability harder
โข Less accountability
โข Relaxed enforcement
โข Lower payment rate for CRP and thus targeting made more
difficult
โข Does little for ongoing conservation problems,
โข e.g. nutrient enrichment problems and water quality, climate change,
floods and droughts, loss of wildlife habitat
11. 2018 Farm bill
New Goals No.
Emphasis on production, not
conservation
Expand
Conservation
No.
Contracts Conservation. Less money
New Tools No.
Reduces effectiveness of existing tools
Conclusion Step in the wrong direction. Threatens