The Third Grazing Lands Forum

GROUP 1: Research, Evaluation and Monitoring of CRP

ISSUE:

FACTORS:

• Status of the land, including CRP data base, is not well known.
• Inadequate use of current natural resource data in formulating CRP policies.
• CRP lands occur on a variety of soils making it difficult to characterize erodible lands.
• Insufficient time, funding and resources for research, monitoring, evaluation and education.
• Conflicts among social, economic, ethical and environmental goals of individuals and society.

STEPS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE:

• Develop a broad-based educational program on the future of agriculture and the role the CRP concept can play.
• Develop a profile of CRP land use and a monitoring scheme to track compliance and to evaluate impacts on the environment.
• Develop a 25-year high-priority research program on landscape management and systems research, emphasizing productivity and profitability.
• Establish a task force with agency representation to increase technology transfer and clearing houses of information on physical and biological factors.
• Continue conservation planning on farms with CRP lands so that all resources are reflected in an integrated plan.

GLF MEMBER ROLES:

• Interact with the conservation coalition, agricultural producer groups, grass roots organizations, and government agencies concerning issues from this Forum.
• Sponsor a symposium to address further implementation of the Conservation Reserve Program concept for grazing lands.

GROUP 2: Long-Term Use of CRP Lands

ISSUE:

FACTORS:

• Major influence of the market place in determining future of CRP lands.
• Conflict between CRP and commodity program objectives.
• Conflict between individual and societal interests.
• Lack of clear vision of what CRP goals should be.

STEPS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE:

• Decouple program payments from production and thus encourage landowners to participate in CRP.
• Develop criteria to define environmentally sensitive lands and exclude such lands from crop subsidies and crop acreage base.
• Implement information and education programs to explain the benefits of maintaining protective vegetation on environmentally sensitive lands.
• Redefine the goals, objectives, and criteria of the CRP.
• Project land needs for 1995-2045 based on CRP and annual Acreage Reserve Program projections.

GLF MEMBER ROLES:

• Develop criteria to identify environmentally sensitive lands.
• Explore excluding environmentally sensitive lands from crop subsidies and crop acreage.
• NACD and other organizational sponsorship of state and local forums to identify CRP inconsistencies and to develop additional ideas for the program.
• Encourage appropriate agencies to realistically evaluate:
  • Comparative costs and benefits of maintaining environmentally sensitive lands in protective vegetation.
  • Economic value of grasslands versus croplands by region.

GROUP 3: Management of CRP Lands Under Contract

ISSUE:

FACTORS:

• Agricultural Policy--Lack of long-term agricultural policy and consistent agency procedures, standards, and specifications to help farmers and ranchers plan and apply proper management to meet CRP requirements and their post- contract objectives.
• Planning and Management Assistance--Lack of adequate agency time and/or staff to provide the technical assistance producers need to plan, contract, and apply management essential to meet CRP objectives and to provide an income- producing enterprise after CRP contracts expire.
• Economics--Lack of adequate economic incentives to encourage producers to provide an adapted permanent cover and related facilities as the basis for an income-producing enterprise at the end of the contract period.
• Research and Education--Lack of data on performance and longevity of various species and cultivars under minimal management, and cultural practices.
• Seed Supply--Scarce supply of adapted species and cultivars at a fair price.

STEPS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE:

• Establish long-term agricultural policy to guide agencies and producers in planning and applying proper management on CRP and other lands.
• Change CRP sign-up practices, revise existing CRP plans, as necessary, and train employees to provide technical assistance.
• Initiate research to evaluate the CRP.

GLF MEMBER ROLES:

• Sponsor and participate in meetings concerned with long- term agricultural legislation and policy.
• Write to responsible agencies and NACD, urging them to implement the suggested solutions and asking for a copy of the CRP-related training program.
• Recommend that funding be provided for research proposals designed to evaluate CRP.

GROUP 4: Use of CRP Lands Under Contract

ISSUE:

* Currently permitted by law but additional education on benefits required.

FACTORS:

• Current law and regulations.
• Long- and short-term policy.
• Impact on existing markets.
• Landowner and public knowledge on value of keeping CRP lands in permanent cover.

STEPS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE:

• Develop a comprehensive public information program to show the landowner and the public the benefits (economic and noneconomic) from permitting additional compatible uses of CRP lands.
• Modify laws, regulations, and policies to accommodate additional acceptable compatible uses.
• Implement the changes through Coordinated Resource Management (CRM) process.

GLF MEMBER ROLES:

• Stimulate development of a public information and education program.
• Identify audiences and sponsor educational workshops.
• Coordinate development of recommendations by local/regional coalitions.
• Act as "honest broker" for Congressional staff in developing legislation.
• Facilitate development of administrative guidelines.
• Monitor implementation to insure objectives are being met.

GROUP 5: Changes or Expansions of the CRP

ISSUE:

FACTORS:

• Crop Base Loss--Farm commodity provisions require loss of base when CRP land is not cropped after contracts expire, providing an incentive to return CRP land to crop production.
• Limited CRP Eligibility--Many environmentally sensitive lands, such as overgrazed riparian areas and hardwood forests and wetlands, are excluded.
• Two Erosion Standards--CRP land returned to crop production can meet less stringent conservation compliance standards than for sodbusting.
• Short Contract Term--10-year CRP contracts are too short and there is no follow-up program to assist the transition to sustainable uses.
• Productive Potential Exceeds Demand--CRP lands are not needed for crop or livestock production in the forseeable future.
• Environmental Costs/Benefits--Hard to measure and convey to farmers and society.

STEPS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE:

• Decouple program payments from production or allow base transfer or exchange to discourage farmers from abusing natural resources.
• CRP legislation to extend contract length; extend eligibility; require stricter compliance standards after contracts expire.
• Expand information and education activities to identify long-term use (or nonuse), including benefits and costs of sustainable uses.

GLF MEMBER ROLES:

• Commission issue papers on proposals to change commodity provisions that would remove incentives to plow up CRP land.
• Provide leadership to change CRP legislation:
  • Establish a committee to identify environmentally sensitive lands.
  • Frame proposals for changes in the 1990 Farm Bill.
  • Organize head-to-head negotiations between factions on proposals.
• Request the Secretary of Agriculture to:
  • Extend CRP contracts to legislated 15-year maximum.
  • Treat plowing CRP lands as sodbusting.
  • Require just compensation for emergency hay removed from CRP lands.

GROUP 6: Wildlife and Environmental Issues

ISSUE:

FACTORS:

• Nonmarket Incentives--Poorly developed market and incentive systems for rewarding wildlife and environmental outputs.
• Disincentives--Disincentives for long-term management (such as loss of cropland base); most economic uses prohibited during contract period.
• Limited Eligibility--Other environmentally sensitive lands in need of wildlife management are not presently eligible for CRP.
• Education--Lack of coordinated education/outreach program on best management practices for land owners.
• Low Priority--Guidelines and regulations do not adequately cover environmental and wildlife management.
• Economies of Scale--Small, isolated parcels of CRP land are not conducive to management for wildlife.

STEPS TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE:

• Provide positive incentives and delete negative factors to encourage maintenance of CRP land in desirable vegetation over the long term.
• Permit economic use with environmental safeguards during contract period.
• Create "Conservation Land Links" with leveraged funds in management plans.

GLF MEMBER ROLES:

• Encourage USDA to revise incentives in existing CRP regulations and to incorporate these changes into 199O Farm Bill.
• Conduct research on the implications of alternative transitional economic use and management of CRP lands.
• Encourage SCS to incorporate transitional land use management into conservation plans for CRP lands.
• Establish a Task Force on the "Conservation Land Links" concept and prepare a brochure explaining it to federal, state, and local governments, academic institutions, and landowners.
• Develop "Conservation Land Links" demonstration projects with conservation districts and state agencies using water quality management and other funds.

NEXT STEPS

FORUM REPORTS

INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS

• The Grazing Lands Forum Newsletter, published quarterly to keep member organizations current on grazing issues and meeting dates.
• Informal meetings coincident with meetings sponsored by member organizations to provide more opportunities for communication. The next such session will be at the American Society of Agronomy meeting, on November 29, 1988, in Anaheim, California.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACTION

THE FOURTH FORUM

1988 GLF OFFICERS

PLANNING COMMITTEE

REPORT WRITERS

FACILITATORS

Last updated November 27, 1995.