The Grazing Lands Forum (GLF) is an outgrowth of the National Grazing Lands and People Conference, held in Denver in 1982. The GLF was formally organized in 1985 as a consortium of independent organizations and agencies with an interest in the impacts of livestock grazing and associated activities on the land and its natural resource potential. The Forum's purpose is to promote cooperation in improving stewardship of the Nation's grazing lands, defined in a broad context to include all lands that supply forage for livestock and wildlife. Grazing lands include range, pasture, and forest lands, and those croplands associated with grazing. These lands make up one of the largest components of our natural resource base.
In addition to other activities designed to promote good grazing land management, GLF organizes and conducts a Forum for mutual discussion. The Forum process runs in an annual cycle that includes selection and refinement of issues for discussion and exchange of papers or outlines presenting member organizations' viewpoints and information on the year's topic. A facilitated 2- day conference is designed to foster frank, face-to-face discussion between representatives of member organizations. These meetings promote understanding and reconciliation of different positions to make Forum members, policymakers, and the concerned public aware of the community of grazing lands interests. Proceedings and other publications deriving from the discussion papers and meetings serve to disseminate and document understandings arrived at through the Forum process and provide useful educational material.
The GLF is a "meta-organization": membership in the GLF is through member organizations. There are two categories of member organizations: core organizations, which provide financial support directly to GLF and are voting members of the governing board; and technical organizations, usually government agencies, which provide technical expertise and indirect logistic support for GLF. Individuals can also join the GLF as sustaining members. Current member organizations are listed below.
The first Forum involved an exchange of viewpoints between members for over a year on the topic of grazing land management's effects on water quality. A meeting was held on May 20-22, 1986, at Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. Six issue areas were identified and discussed: 1) grazing management in riparian zones; 2) the role of assessing and managing biophysical factors; 3) the need for and limitations to assessing economic costs and benefits; 4) managing for the social needs of various user groups; 5) increasing understanding through education and cooperation; and 6) public policy options for improving grazing management to protect water resources.
At the completion of the meeting, members found agreement on a long-term, multiple use framework for managing grazing lands and disagreement on how this land management ethic could be implemented. Perhaps the central question distilled from the discussion was "Who benefits from and who pays for multiple use managment?" With that question in mind, the GLF Executive Committee decided to look deeper into multiple use management of grazing lands in the second Forum.
The Second Forum focused on ways in which management can capitalize on multiple use values of grazing lands. It was agreed that the Forum also needed to move beyond improving communication between Forum members and exercise a more forceful role in educating the public and policy makers in the need for and obstacles to multiple use management of grazing lands. A forum was held on October 5-7, 1988. Issues addressed included: 1) institutional barriers to multiple use management; 2) changing people's attitudes about multiple use; 3) benefits and costs of multiple use management; 4) improving technology transfer for multiple use management; 5) promoting multiple use management on private land; and 6) the Clean Water Act and multiple use management. Forum participants and the Executive Committee agreed on a number of steps to further explore multiple use of grazing lands, including: establishment of a GLF newsletter; informal meetings coincident with member organization meetings; and documentation of successful multiple use projects in the West.
The Planning Committee, with the concurrence of the Executive Committee, decided to focus the Third Forum more specifically on a topic of current interest to resource policy makers: the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) established in Title XII of the Food Security Act of 1985, our current farm legislation. The Third Forum was intended to identify grazing land conservation opportunities and concerns that could be successfully addressed by the CRP concept. Participants addressed opportunities in the current CRP, including existing contracts and new contracts within the existing 45 million acre limit, and new opportunities for grazing and crop lands envisioned for 1990 farm legislation. Both near-term opportunities within existing 10-year contracts and opportunities after current contracts expire were considered.
In response to its chartered purpose of promoting cooperation for improvement of stewardship on the Nation's grazing lands, the Forum had the following objective:
Considering the probable future of American agriculture, develop a strategy to capitalize on the opportunities presented by the Conservation Reserve Program concept for grazing land conservation and improvement.
The Forum proposes to establish communication and trust among participating members and, building on our shared perceptions, identify key findings, messages, and areas of agreement (and disagreement) to develop a mutually agreed-upon agenda for action. Reports and summaries highlighting the results of the entire Forum process have been prepared and will be sent to key agencies, legislators, conservation groups, and resource users with suggested agendas for implementing action.
Forum participants identified common themes and possible roles for GLF member organizations, including the following.
John Campbell comes to the task of keynoting the Third Forum from a farm background in Nebraska, and from the perspective of production agriculture. His comments reflect a commodity view of the Conservation Title, rather than a conservationist's viewpoint, and provide an "insider's" view of the development of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).
John promised to give a theoretical overview of the origins, status and prospects for change in the CRP. Referring back to the conceptual origins of CRP, John reminded us that it was not included in draft legislation initially considered. However, recognition that growing surpluses stemming from reaction to the 1983 drought and the downturn in agricultural exports could be more cheaply managed through a long-term retirement program than annual set asides led to CRP's development. Estimates at that time were that a reserve could retire land for as little as $40-50 per acre, compared with as much as $120 per acre for annual programs.
Support for CRP from commodity, conservation, and environmental interests insured that the program would explicitly have multiple objectives of supply control, erosion control, water quality improvement, and wildlife habitat. Forestry interests, and conservationists who believed longer-term changes would result, succeeded in establishing a goal of 12 percent of the 45- million acre goal be planted to trees. The legislation included eligibility for "other environmentally sensitive" areas. Additional lobbying by environmental groups during implementation of the CRP succeeded in rules for filter strips along streams, water bodies and wetlands under this eligibility.
Experience on Capitol Hill since passage in 1985 includes the following ideas for changes:
Major changes to CRP have not been proposed, and are not likely to be passed prior to the 1990 Farm Bill. In fact, there are several options for timing of the next farm bill debate, conditioned by arrival of a new administration and the fact that half the members of the Senate Agriculture Committee are up for election in 1989. The farm bill could be considered in 1989, or when the 1985 Food Security Act expires in 1990, or in 1991, after a one-year extension of the 1985 law.
A new Administration will probably affect prospects for changes in farm legislation. Given the deficit problem, ways to reduce expenditures on commodity programs will be sought. However, environmental problems must also be addressed, particularly nonpoint source water pollution. To the extent possible, a "carrot" approach will be preferred over regulatory "sticks." Some kind of minimum stewardship standard based on environmental damage in return for public support of commodity policies is likely. The Conservation Title in 1985 farm legislation focused on getting environmentally sensitive lands out of production and keeping them out of production. The next farm bill will focus on environmental controls on land that is in production. Decoupling of commodity production and program benefits, desirable from a supply control viewpoint, may be a useful tool for environmental improvements as well. There is a degree of consensus between environmental and commodity or farm interests on this concept. Now the details must be hammered out.
Most people are aware of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), having heard about it on radio or TV, read about it in evaluation reports, newspapers or magazines, or having been involved at the "cutting edge" in implementing the program. As implemented, CRP involves such complexities as bid pool areas, rental rates, and contracts. However, for now let's step back and take a look at the purposes of the program and how things are measuring up. While evaluations have been started in USDA and in other agencies and organizations, judgments are not complete. Some of the data, however, provides insights into the accomplishment of the program's purposes.
Some 25.5 million acres have been accepted into CRP, well ahead of goals set by Congress in the Food Security Act of 1985. Another 3.4 million acres were bid in the seventh signup, but have not yet been accepted. Land placed in CRP contracts accounts for more than 25 percent of the 101.5 million acres of highly erodible cropland eligible for enrollment. In three years, nearly 1.4 of every 10 farms has bid and been accepted into the program. The majority of cropland accepted into CRP is located in the Northern Plains, Mountain, and Southern Plains regions (table 1). The Corn Belt, Northern Plains, and Mountain regions have most of the land eligible for the program.
The primary purpose of the CRP is to establish a voluntary program to conserve and improve soil and water resources by taking highly erodible land out of crop production. Land placed in the CRP is highly erodible cropland. When cover is established on each of these acres, annual erosion will be reduced more than 20 tons per acre. That's over 590 million tons of soil yearly. This means that the 7 percent of cropland that is in CRP achieved an 18 percent reduction in total annual erosion for all cropland. More importantly, it has reduced the total erosion in excess of "T," the soil loss tolerance level, by more than 36 percent, a very significant amount. In addition, because of the CRP a quarter of the 117.9 million acres of highly erodible cropland subject to conservation compliance provisions of the 1985 Food Security Act now meets compliance requirements.
Now, let's look at the secondary purposes of the law. The first is to facilitate sound resource management. That's done through the conversion of highly erodible cropland to perennial vegetation for future use as rangeland, pastureland, hayland, wildlife habitat, or woodland. Cropland under contract as of February 1988 will be converted primarily to tame and native grasses (table 2). Some 1.5 million acres will be planted to trees, and another 227 thousand acres will be planted to trees from the most recent signup.
The next secondary purpose is to improve fish and wildlife habitat. The million acres of wildlife habitat shown in table 2 is only the tip of the Table 1--Regional distribution of Conservation Reserve Program enrollment and eligibility 1/
: Enrollment : Eligibility
2/ Region : Acreage : Share :
Acreage : Share
:
: Million Percent Million
Percent
:
Northeast : 0.1 0.5 3.0
4.3
Lake States : 2.1 8.1 5.7
8.2
Corn Belt : 3.6 13.9 16.4
23.5
Northern Plains : 6.0 23.7 13.3
19.2
Appalachian : 0.9 3.4 4.7
6.7
:
Southeast : 1.2 4.9 2.7
3.9
Delta States : 0.8 3.0 2.1
3.0
Southern Plains : 4.1 16.1 8.7
12.5
Mountain : 5.2 20.4 10.0
14.3
Pacific : 1.5 5.9 3.1
4.5
:
United States : 25.5 100.0 69.7
100.0
:
1/ As of 6th signup period, February 1988.
2/ Enrollment constrained to no more than 25 percent of
cropland in each county.
Table 2--Conservation Reserve Program acreage treated by conservation practices 1/
Practice : Enrollment : Share
:
: Million acres Percent
:
Introduced grasses : 14.8 58.0
Native grasses : 6.8 26.7
Tree plantings : 1.5 5.9
Wildlife plantings : 1.0 3.9
Other practices 2/ : 1.4 5.5
:
Total : 25.5 100.0
:
1/ As of 6th signup period, February 1988.
2/ Includes field windbreaks, diversions, erosion and
sediment control structures, grass and sod waterways, shallow
water areas, and filter strips.
iceberg. All acres converted to permanent cover will have a substantial effect on wildlife. Annual food plots are included in many plantings to provide food areas and improve habitat.
The next secondary purpose is to increase the Nation's woodland resources. Criteria and rule changes have been made to specifically increase acres of trees planted in the program. The CRP will have planted 1.7 million acres of trees in three years, compared with 1.4 million acres in the depression-era CCC, 2 million acres in the Soil Bank Program between 1957 and 1961, 1.5 million acres planted in the National Forest System between 1979 and 1982, and 1.1 million acres in USDA's Forest Incentives Program.
Another secondary purpose is to improve water quality. There has been considerable interest in water quality and to meet this need the filter strip practice was added. There are now over 16,000 acres of filter strips protecting over 1,300 miles of stream bank enrolled in the CRP.
The last secondary purpose is to reduce the supply of surplus commodities. Two-thirds of the acres enrolled in CRP are crop acreage base (CAB) acres, for purposes of farm programs. The largest amount of base acreage has come out of wheat production (7.1 million acres), followed by corn (2.8 million acres) and barley (1.9 million acres).
The criteria for CRP eligibility have varied from signup to signup period. There are five separate sets of criteria. First, any cropland in land capability classes (LCC) VI, VII, and VIII is eligible. Second, land in LCC II-V with actual soil loss greater than 3T during crop years 1981 through 1985 is eligible. If LCC II-V land had predicted average soil loss of 2T or greater between 1981 and 1985 and serious ephemeral or gully erosion problems, it is also eligible. The fourth criteria is land that has both potential erosion (Erodibility Index) from wind or water greater than 8 and an actual erosion rate greater than that recommended in the Field Office Technical Guide during the years 1981 through 1985. Finally, if the applicant intends to plant trees, fields with as little as one-third of the land meeting any of the criteria above are eligible. To meet water quality needs, filter strips of grass and trees to reduce aditional sedimentation and improve water quality are now eligible for CRP.
How many of the acres enrolled in CRP will remain after contracts end? Most conservationists believe that the the CRP has been a successful program, at least up to this point. The problem is that CRP contracts are for a ten-year period. Beginning in 1995, the first contracts will terminate and all contracts will be terminated by 2000. We have a good track record to look at in the case of trees. The old Soil Bank program had a total of 88 percent of the trees planted remain out of cropland use. There is less information about grass planted in the past, but we suspect the record is poorer. Once contracts expire, CRP land is subject to less stringent conservation compliance rules, rather than the stricter T value standard applied to sodbusted land.
Crop acreage bases of CRP participants, for purposes of farm program participation, are protected during the term of the contract. However, upon termination, the original CAB's will be reduced by 20 percent each year that they are not planted. Therefore, in 1995 the CRP participant will have strong economic incentives to return CRP land to crop production. Without basic commodity program changes, the effects of the CRP will be limited to only 10 years, not the long term envisioned by Congress. One option may be to maintain CAB's on CRP land for an extended period. Another possibility is to freeze existing CAB's and make them transferable, allowing the CRP landowner to extract the value of his crop acreage base by selling it to another landowner.
This summer's drought has had an impact on CRP land. First, acres planted to windbreaks and converted to permanent vegetation have reduced the possibility of severe dust storms caused by excessive dryness and strong winds. Second, the emergency decision to allow haying of CRP grass provided feed relief for some livestock, without sacrificing the newly-established vegetation. Rules require forfeit of a portion of CRP rental payments for the privelege of haying CRP land. As an alternative, producers can install additional conservation practices to repay haying on CRP land.
As part of the Forum process, input was solicited from a wide range of member and non-member organizations and agencies. Organizations responded to a questionnaire asking them to identify the five most important grazing lands issues related to the CRP. Representatives were invited to a June meeting in Washington to propose and discuss issues for the Third Forum. The following organizations and agencies responded to the questionnaire or attended the June meeting.
A total of 84 issues were received, grouped into the following 6 categories, with subcategories, and summarized to eliminate redundancies. Issues were edited into question format to eliminate polemical statements. A more complete summary is included in Appendix I.
A panel of knowledgeable individuals was organized to present information and viewpoints on each of the six issues identified prior to the Forum. This served to get all the participants thinking about possible relationships between grazing lands and the Conservation Reserve Program and provided some conceptual background for the discussion to follow. The panelists' presentations are summarized below.
These remarks are based, in part, on input from members of the Society for Range Management's CRP Committee. They are directed at information needs in implementing and evaluating CRP and its effects on grazing lands and other natural and human resources.
Research--Basic research is needed in the very near future to determine the present status of these lands in relation to their future potential. The number one thing we must know is: how well are planted stands, especially of native species mixtures, establishing and what types of plant successional stages are occurring? This will require observation over a period of years, coupled with use of management practices such as intensities of grazing, fertilization, and use of fire or mowing, alone or in combination.
Studies need to be initiated to determine the impact of different vegetation types as to insect populations and their effect on both the CRP stands and other croplands in close proximity.
The potential benefits to wildlife require some intensive research as well. Serious efforts need to be directed towards development of species of shrubs, trees, and other vegetation and their arrangement on the landscape to enhance wildlife habitat.
Other research needed may be to take livestock closer to a finished product on grass alone. Marketing of grass-fat livestock would reduce or keep breeding herds static rather than to expand herds to consume extra forage available. Related to this is the need for economic research on grass versus crops on marginal land.
Evaluation--The most difficult task may be evaluation. A major requirement will be for the development of multi-agency, multi- disciplinary teams of resource people. Natural resource economists need to address the effect of CRP on surpluses, farm income, community, and societal impacts. We need to determine the "true" cost of this program. Total costs and benefits must include the cost of continued soil and nutrient losses, air and water pollution abatement, the cost of storing or selling crop surpluses at a loss, subsidizing exports, subsidizing storage, price supports, and any other costs incurred by bringing these lands back into production.
Individuals who are presently farmers will, in all probability, remain so; and in some instances the CRP lands are situated in such a way that it may not be feasible to switch to a livestock operation. The majority of livestock operators could be surveyed by questionnaire and/or focused interviews as to their intentions following the CRP. Questions that need to be asked are: 1) What do you intend to do with the CRP land after 10 years? 2) Will you still be farming/ranching?
Massive education and planning efforts need to be implemented three or four years before the termination of this program to aid those operators who intend to continue the CRP in investigating alternative uses, such as fee hunting or other recreational uses. The bottom line is that unless the economic incentive is there for the land operator, most of the present CRP land will be plowed again. Serious consideration of permanent conservation easements should also be pursued.
Monitoring--Plant communities must be observed and evaluated at various times over the 10-year period to determine their status relative to expected outcome. New sophisticated technology needs to be employed, such as remote sensing from aircraft, to monitor large-scale changes. Another area for monitoring is the matter of administrative compliance by the landowners and operators.
Looking into 1990 and consideration of the next Farm Bill, a number of issues will have to be dealt with by Congress. The environmental and conservation groups who are collectively known as the Conservation Coalition, as well as other conservation and producer interests don't want CRP land reverted back to cropland.
Some of the measures which are being discussed could be important for permanent protection of these CRP lands. First, Congress should allow an economic use on CRP land starting in the seventh year of the contract. This would allow the landowner to develop an enterprise that would provide some economic incentive to keep the land out of crop production. A good analysis of the impact of economic use on the livestock industry is needed to clarify the costs and benefits of this approach.
Another option is for the Government to purchase cropping rights or permanent easements on CRP land. This would be a one-time buyout of cropping rights that would prevent CRP land from being used for crop production, except in carefully stated emergency situations. Farmers have sold their development rights to farmland for years as part of farmland preservation programs in Massachusetts, Maryland, and other areas. It makes sense to apply this strategy to conservation as well. The permanent easement would impact the value of farm, but this decrease in future value is offset by the payment received in the present. Experience with purchase of development rights programs indicates that the value of such land usually continues to increase over time, although perhaps not as rapidly as for land with development rights intact.
A number of proposals have been made to expand CRP over the last few years. A bill recently introduced by Senator Fowler has received interest from the Conservation Coalition and others andy may be a starting point for legislation. It expands the reserve to 65 or 70 million acres and one-half of the increased land will be put in trees. Fowler's bill establishes a reserve for wetlands, including former wetlands that are restored to their undrained condition.
This proposal, and others that will be introduced as the 1990 Farm Bill debate proceeds, will be focused on the future use of CRP lands, beyond the contract period.
The Conservation Reserve Program is not a uniform program. Plantings range in quality from superior to extremely poor. Management of these CRP lands means maintenance, which is required by law, and maintenance depends to a great extent on the producer's objectives and the species planted. For example, a producer may be facing retirement and be willing to put unsuitable cropland in retirement as well or may want to plow it up after the contract expires in order to sell as much cropland as possible. Other producers may be interested in starting or expanding a livestock enterprise. Still others may be interested in creating or enhancing wildlife habitat.
Unfortunately, dollars alone often dictate the choice of species. The economics of plantings changed dramatically as CRP implementation drove up the price of seed for conservation plantings. These changes may have, in turn, affected producer's objectives.
The type of maintenance needed varies depending on the species planted. Cool-season species, for example, call for mechanical or chemical approaches to management, but use of chemicals can cause other problems, i.e., water contamination. Warm-season grasses can be managed through mechanical or chemical means, but also through prescribed burning.
Management must be carried out throughout the contract period so that the stand protects the soil and land will be ready to meet producer objectives at the end of the contract period. Technology can now provide ways to maintain these stands, but social restrictions remain. Concerns about maintenance practices include questions of air and water quality, wildlife habitat, and other issues.
An additional source of concern is the apparent lack of commitment and knowledge on the part of some producers. On the other hand, government agencies often seem unable to communicate necessary information to the producers or to other interested parties, such as the financial community. Agencies need to improve the training of employees, so that they are competent to assist producers gain the knowledge to plan and carry out good management practices on CRP lands. Agencies need to be able to develop flexible plans that can meet the changing objectives of the landowners. Education is needed, not only for the landowner, but for agricultural lenders who have a large role in conservation investments and the owner's plans for the future of CRP land.
Finally, dollar incentives are needed to influence producers to make management decisions that lead to achievement of CRP objectives. The only allowable use during the contract period is for wildlife habitat, but this also needs management to be productive.
The overall premise is to keep CRP lands in permanent cover after the contract period. Further, it is desirable that stands be healthy and provide conservation benefits at the end of the contract period. To this end, landowners must be encouraged to plan for the future of the land so as to avoid apathy and use of the "cheapest" short-term management tool. We have to recognize that there are various kinds of landowners and situations, ranging from owner-operators to landlords and from individual fields to whole farms enrolled in the CRP.
Critics of using CRP land for grazing have said that grazing and/or haying are non-conserving uses. Substituting CRP lands for some stressed public lands for grazing would involve complex analysis and could not be simply acre-for-acre substitution, given different qualities of lands. To graze these lands in a manner compatible with conservation goals would require high skill levels in overall management. Further, a good environmental and wildlife/fish habitat monitoring program would be necessary to compare results with and without grazing. Certainly, grazing has been shown to improve habitat quality by preventing forage decadence and alleviate certain rodent problems.
There is some question about how much CRP land would be grazed even if it could be grazed. At 1 acre per animal unit month (AUM), CRP land accounts for a maximum 20 million AUMs of forage annually over a 7-month grazing season. This is only about 4.5 million animal units out of 100 million, even if all the forage is used all at one time.
Even currently, some grazing of CRP was permitted to alleviate stress during this year's drought conditions and could conceivably be allowed again in a similar emergency.
As for possible uses of CRP lands besides grazing, uses involving water, wildlife, and game usually involve State regulations as well as the rights of the landowners, who control access to their lands. To ensure that wildlife are actually benefitting, there should be an agreed-to wildlife management plan. Such a plan might even prove more profitable than grazing and encourage the landowner to keep the lands in permanent cover after 10 years via contract extension.
Farm Bureau is our nation's largest organization of farmers and ranchers. Our organization represents growers of virtually every agricultural commodity grown in the United States. Through a policy development process that originates at the county Farm Bureau level and concludes with consideration by the voting delegates to the American Farm Bureau annual meeting, our members have taken positions on a broad range of issues, including the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).
Farm Bureau policy supports the establishment and the expansion of CRP to reduce soil erosion and reduce surplus production. Although our policy supports more lenient entry requirements for enrolling land into the CRP, it opposes eligibility for farmers who "sodbust" or break up fragile land.
Because we represent such a broad range of commodity interests, our policy opposes grazing or harvesting of CRP lands. This policy resulted from strong concerns that grazing or harvesting of lands enrolled in the CRP would result in unfair competition and lower market prices of hay and other forage crops. Opportunities for Expansion
The CRP has been a success. More than 29 million acres have now been enrolled in the CRP. Although the primary objective of the program was to remove highly erodible land from cultivation, its secondary benefit of reducing surplus production has made it a very popular program with farmers and ranchers. Even the last signup, which was conducted during a period of higher commodity prices, is expected to result in the enrollment of nearly 4 million additional acres, according to the Soil Conservation Service.
Some are skeptical that the popularity of the CRP and enrollment of additional acres at the current rate can be sustained under current economic conditions. The 1985 Farm Bill, more favorable export conditions and the 1988 drought have dramatically reduced carryover stocks of agricultural commodities. The higher commodity prices which have resulted make the CRP less attractive to agricultural producers as a management option. A few farmers have even chosen to withdraw previously enrolled land from the CRP, pay all penalties and return it to crop production. It is clear that economic conditions will be a major factor in determining whether CRP meets its long-term objective of 40-45 million acres.
Enrollment of additional environmentally sensitive areas in an "Environment Conservation Acreage Reserve Program" (ECARP) is a concept which has been proposed through legislation introduced by Senators Dole and Nunn and Representative Hatcher. Although Farm Bureau currently does not have a policy position on this concept, it offers significant opportunities for expanding the CRP. Proponents of this legislation estimate that it could expand the reserve by 5 to 65 million acres.
ECARP would expand enrollment by including in the reserve farmland in environmentally sensitive areas. Areas with groundwater contamination problems, surface water contamination from irrigation runoff, endangered species habitat, or farmland where pesticide use must be restricted because of its proximity to urban areas, would be eligible for enrollment.
In spite of the new opportunities ECARP presents for enlarging the CRP, it is a new and controversial concept that Farm Bureau is not yet ready to endorse. We are encouraging discussion of this issue by our members in conjunction with the policy development process which ends with our annual meeting in January.
Other opportunities for expanding the CRP are equally controversial and are not currently supported by Farm Bureau. These proposals include increasing incentives for enrollment and extension of 10-year contracts, additional increases in the county enrollment limit for those counties with a high percentage of highly erodible land, and imposing penalties for returning CRP lands to production when contracts expire.
Declines in wildlife populations, increased soil erosion, and deteriorating water quality have resulted from changing agricultural land use practices during the last 50 years. Quail, pheasant, and rabbit populations that benefit from mosaic cropland patterns have declined by over 50% in the Midwest.
Soil erosion has resulted in the loss of over 5 billion tons of top soil from 75 percent of all U.S. croplands. Agricultural sources of sediment and nonpoint source pollution impact 46 percent of U.S. waterways, creating moderate to severe problems in 36 states.
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), containing 40-45 million acres, could reverse resource loss and degradation. In addition, some State fish and wildlife agencies have supplemented CRP funds. Therefore, many conservationists fear supporting any grazing which would negate conservation gains and investments. Some of these fears may be justified based on 1987 RCA data which reveal that 61 percent of the 405 million acres of nonfederal rangeland is in poor or only fair condition. In addition, about 70 million acres of private rangeland and 11 million acres of pastureland are eroding at rates in excess of T.
Though overgrazing is detrimental, controlled periodic grazing can be a compatible and beneficial practice. The key to sustaining wildlife habitat is to maintain vegetative cover height, density, and diversity. Controlled grazing could aid vegetative vigor and productivity. Such grazing might take place every 3-5 years, be short term, and occur after mid-July.
During drought or dry summers, grassland wildlife become more dependent on the residual grass cover of previous years. A management strategy interspersing ungrazed climax grassland with grazed units managed in successional stages is required.
Vegetative diversity increases community stability and variety, wildlife populations, and species richness. Shelter belts, wind breaks, shallow water areas, and filter strips comprise only 1 percent of CRP land, while grasses and shrubs appear on 8 million acres. Increased federal cost shares, bonus payments, plus local and state incentives are needed to increase diverse cover practices.
Some environmentally sensitive areas, such as riparian habitats, are incompatible with grazing. Purchase of easements, leasing, cost-sharing, fencing, or other actions may be necessary on such areas for wildlife enhancement and protection. Fee hunting, access leasing, and other income producing schemes derived from fish and wildlife may be feasible, depending upon geography, culture, land-use, and clientele. However, increased insurance liability and management costs may be incurred.
Following the background and panel presentations, participants broke into six Issue Working Groups to pursue each of the topics identified from the questionnaire and June meeting. Facilitators working with the Forum assigned the groups four tasks to complete over the course of the Forum, using nominal group techniques. The tasks were:
Each group reported their progress to the entire Forum after each task, receiving suggestions and responding to questions from all participants. Based on this feedback, the products of each task were continually refined. A summary of the discussion and findings of each Issue Working Group is presented in the next section of the report.
What monitoring, evaluation and research are needed to ensure CRP meets objectives, protects the environment and provides direction for the future?
The participants felt we should narrow the research needs to the most important issues, since time and funding are short. Research, evaluation and monitoring of the CRP are needed to determine usefulness of various vegetative covers, effectiveness of the program in meeting objectives, improving profitability and protecting the environment. A monitoring program should measure progress, compliance and the impacts on water quality and other natural resources. Both the public and the participant must be served. The group also believed there is a need to monitor attitudes of the producer. Will he keep CRP in permanent cover after the contract expires? What incentives are available? Is the CRP an effective way to cut surplus production, reduce erosion, and achieve water quality?
The group thought of most of the factors bearing on this issue as barriers to conducting research or using existing research to effectively implement CRP. After identifying 46 barriers which currently inhibit research, monitoring and evaluation of the CRP, the group consolidated its concerns into five major problem areas:
Other barriers to the achievement of effective research are the unpredictability of economic situations which will determine landowner's actions in the future, the public's desire for cheap food, and the complexity and conflicts in objectives of farm program laws and politics.
The group also believed there is real interest and need for research into low-input agricultural systems which maximize profits by searching for optimal yields while minimizing costs. We need to study the cause and effect relationships of CRP lands in a global agricultural economy. Are we losing ag markets to other countries? We should also look at other lands which might be included in a conservation reserve. Highly erodible soils are not the only marginal lands.
Education--Develop a broad-based educational program about the future of agriculture and the role the CRP concept can play. This should include the following elements:
Responsibility--Universities, the Extension Service, and other technical assistance agencies.
Monitoring and Evaluation--Develop a profile of CRP land use and a monitoring scheme to track progress and compliance and to evaluate the impacts and improvements to the environment, including water quality.
Responsibility--Extension Service, Soil Conservation Service, and the Agricultural Research Service, USDA.
Research--Develop a 25-year, high-priority research program on landscape management and systems research which emphasizes productivity and profitability.
Responsibility--Agricultural Research Service, the Cooperative State Research Service, and universities.
Communications--Establish a task force of core agencies needed to increase the transfer of information, to provide technical assistance, and to establish clearinghouses so that participants can tap into current information on physical and biological factors affecting CRP lands. Such factors could include site specific factors, water quality concerns, nonpoint source controls, alternative farming methods and crops, and management techniques.
Responsibility--Extension Service, Soil Conservation Service, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Agricultural Research Service.
Action--Continue to plan and update conservation plans on farms with CRP lands so that all natural resource needs and concerns are reflected in an integrated management plan.
Responsibility--Soil Conservation Service.
The Grazing Lands Forum executive committee and member organizations should interact and communicate with the following key groups on CRP issues:
GLF should explore the possibility of sponsoring or cosponsoring a national symposium to address the implementation of this report on CRP issues and concerns.
The group was led to this central issue by first discussing several ideas about the future of CRP lands. History shows that other conservation programs all suffered the same fate: Landowners reverted acres to cropland which led once again to soil erosion, loss of water quality, negative impacts on local and national economies, destruction of wildlife habitat, and other social ills. To keep from repeating this history, the group felt that landowners needed encouragement to maintain CRP lands in protective cover, needed income provided while doing so, and needed an option to produce crops in the future if necessary.
After considering these ideas, the group discussed several factors that will influence CRP's future.
The group concluded that based on these factors, the future of the CRP looks promising if steps are taken now to resolve these problems before the contracts expire. After discussing several solutions, the group decided that certain steps were needed to resolve this issue. They then decided which agencies or organizations should take the lead in carrying out these steps.
The group agreed that the GLF's role in assisting to implement these solutions should be to:
Management of lands under contract in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) involves not only the immediate concerns of establishing and maintaining the stand agreed to in the contract but also long-range considerations of economic incentives to encourage the producer to maintain permanent ground cover after the contract expires. In other words, management decisions and actions during the contract period should lead to economically sound use of the land, consistent with desirable environmental and conservation goals, when the contract expires.
The members of the group identified nearly 30 specific factors that impede management of CRP lands. These ranged from lack of a clear national agricultural policy to weed control concerns. After considerable discussion, the factors were grouped into five general categories.
Just as the factors affecting management of CRP lands range from the very broad to the very specific, so too do the solutions recommended by the group. The most sweeping change called for is new farm legislation for a 15-20 year period. The most specific recommendation is for a change in the enrollment procedure for CRP. The solutions suggested are shown below.
To bring about some of the changes that would allow more effective management of CRP lands, GLF member organizations should consider taking the following steps:
The group considered as its task identification of additional compatible uses of CRP lands that would fulfill national/local objectives.
The group listed the following uses possibly compatible with the CRP objective of stabilizing erodible lands but currently prohibited by law:
The last three uses (marked with a *) are currently accepted by law but may require additional education on the benefits they provide.
The group recognized that permitting additional uses of CRP land could provide economic incentives to the landowner to maintain the lands in permanent vegetative cover, providing the conservation values of CRP were not negated. Through proper management, following good conservation plans, the lands will not deteriorate under these additional uses. However, proper study of the impacts of additional products from CRP lands is needed to prevent undesirable effects on the marketplace.
The following factors must be considered before additional uses could become viable:
Education--The first step proposed by the group involved educating the public as to the benefits of soil stabilization. For example, over and above the prevention of soil loss, cover offers watershed benefits and prevents siltation of reservoirs supplying both urban and agricultural water. Another example might be explaining the benefits of substituting CRP lands to rest nearby public lands stressed from overgrazing. By providing economic incentives, the landowner can be encouraged to participate actively in the CRP program and not allow the land to sit idle until plow-out time.
Education also involves deployment of technical information to guide the landowner in managing erodible lands. Trained technical personel could provide information on such subjects as desirable and adaptable plant species, grazing capacity, and season of use.
Market analysts would be required to determine, insofar as possible, current and future market conditions, as well as over- and under-supplies of commodities produced by allowed uses of CRP lands during the contract period.
Modification of Laws and Regulations--The second step in making additional uses available to the landowner would be modification of the current laws, regulations, and policies. Particularly since the implementation of many of the uses suggested earlier in the discussion has the potential for conflict, Coordinated Resource Management would be a useful mechanism for implementing changes to the laws and regulations at the implementation state of the process.
The group felt that GLF could play a special role in the educative aspects of the program. Member organizations working through GLF could stimulate efforts to develop a comprehensive public information/education program for the general public and landowners. GLF could identify audiences for and sponsor educational workshops. In addition, GLF could coordinate development of recommendations by local/regional coalitions.
GLF could perform an "honest broker" role for congressional staff in developing legislation to enact changes in acceptable uses of CRP land. The organization could also facilitate development of administrative guidelines. The actual education and changing of legislation would best be performed by agencies, institutions, private interest groups, and congressional staffs. GLF member organizations could also monitor implementation to insure that CRP objectives were being met when additional uses were permitted.
What specific changes in the CRP program and commodity provisions are needed to better promote the long-term transition from more intensive agricultural uses of environmentally sensitive lands to less intensive uses?
The group decided to broaden the focus of discussion beyond the existing CRP program, finally including changes needed in commodity program provisions as well as modifications to the conservation provisions alone. Similarly, the group decided to consider a broad range of environmentally sensitive lands, not just highly erodible cropland. Examples of such environmentally sensitive lands include riparian (streamside) zones, overgrazed lands, eastern hardwood forests, well-head protection areas, alpine zones, farmed wetlands, arid lands, and areas subject to scour erosion. As much as possible, the group decided to focus on specific changes needed, rather than general policy goals. However, the group saw the general thrust of CRP as a program to ease the transition from more intensive to less intensive agricultural uses of land.
More than 25 factors were suggested by the group as problems with or constraints on the success of the existing CRP program. After grouping and combining these factors, six emerged as most important:
A dozen actions that could overcome these problems and constraints were proposed by members of the group. These were consolidated into three major areas:
Commodity Program Provisions--Change incentives in commodity programs that encourage farmers to abuse natural resources. Examples include:
Responsibility--Congress may need to change legislation and ASCS could make some changes administratively. Key interest groups such as the Conservation Coalition and producer groups such as the American Farm Bureau and the National Cattlemen's Association, should support such changes. The USDA Farm Bill Committee and key legislators would be instrumental in drafting the changes in an acceptable way.
Conservation Reserve Program Changes--Change CRP legislation to eliminate disincentives for long-term sustainable use by:
Responsibility--Congress and ASCS would ultimately be required to make these changes in CRP legislation and regulations. Many of the same actors would be needed to support such changes.
Benefits and Costs of Sustainable Use--Expand information and education activities to identify long-term uses (or nonuse) of CRP lands, including benefits and costs of sustainable uses. Greater effort is needed to identify alternative uses of CRP lands after contracts expire and better quantify the full social benefits and costs of alternative uses, including environmental benefits and costs.
Responsibility--Research agencies such as ARS, ERS, CSRS, EPA and the Land Grant colleges need to find ways to quantify benefits and costs. Professional organizations such as SRM, SWCS, WMI and NACD and technical agencies such as Extension Service, SCS, FS, and FWS need to disseminate information on alternative uses, including costs and benefits, and promote their adoption.
GLF member organizations, coordinated by the Executive Board, could serve as catalysts for discussion and information exchange that would help inform the policy process with regard to conservation of grazing lands. Specific activities include:
Participants noted how the following factors are responsible for some incentive and management inadequacies with respect to wildlife and the environment present in the current CRP.
Cropland Acreage Base Loss--Most potential CRP enrollees are farmers whose main source of income is derived from crop production. Some potential enrollees are reluctant to participate in the CRP because of uncertainty about the effect of such action on their cropland base. One-fifth of cropland acreage base is lost each year CRP land is retained in permanent cover beyond the contract period. For many landowners, maintenance of cropland base for future commodity production is important in moderating the effects of reduced demand and commodity prices. They do not want to jeopardize long-term income security for short-term rental gains.
High Establishment Costs--CRP requires a landowner to contribute half the cost of cover crops (grass and/or trees) and assume management and maintenance responsibilities. There are high investment, operational, and management costs associated with the purchase of some of the better quality seed/sapling varieties, installing windbreaks or shelterbelts, and wildlife habitat production. High initial costs of establishing vegetative cover of higher value for wildlife are disincentives for long term management and extension of the CRP beyond contract periods.
Commercial Use Prohibited--Due to concerns about low cost competition and the effect of added supply on prices, CRP rules prohibit the harvesting of any commodity for which economic benefit can be derived. Such activities include, among others, the production of hay, Christmas trees, and grazing except in emergency situations (such as drought). One of the few exceptions is fish/wildlife fee harvesting, the proceeds of which may be retained by the landowner.
Non-Market Incentives--Non-domesticated fish and wildlife are generally not traded in the marketplace. Levels of production and patterns of distribution are not set by profit and loss mechanisms which exist in private sector markets. Instead, fish and wildlife programs rely on non-market mechanisms, primarily government and private group or individual actions, for funding to improve habitat conditions. Even where sufficient supplies of marketable fish and wildlife exist for harvest via fee fishing/hunting, the clearinghouse mechanisms to bring together landowners and fishermen/hunters are imperfect. Lack of information matching user with landowner, fee schedules, and insurance liability are a few of the factors accounting for the poor development of this market.
Program Expansion--The only lands now eligible for CRP enrollment are fields of highly erodible cropland. Other environmentally sensitive areas, such as riparian (streamside) land, grazed hardwood forests, wetlands, and marginal pasture land, are not eligible for the program. However, such lands may be erodible, environmentally fragile, or contain poor fish and wildlife habitat. Failure to expand CRP to extend planning and management practices to such lands is an impediment to achieving erosion control and wildlife habitat enhancement goals. Excluding such lands from CRP prevents development of a coordinated planning and management strategy for an entire farm unit, as opposed to just a CRP field. Expansion of the program to encompass all fragile lands on a farm would reinforce the conservation ethic and encourage the adoption of environmentally sound management practices for the whole unit.
Education--Not all USDA personnel or landowners involved in developing CRP plans know which management practices are most beneficial to fish and wildlife. In many CRP counties little, if anything, in the way of coordinated information, education, and outreach opportunities exists. The absence of such opportunities often results in the formulation of CRP management plans which do not appreciably enhance wildlife habitat or address environmental concerns.
Low Priority--The primary goal of the CRP program is to reduce commodity production. Controlling soil erosion and fish/wildlife/environmental enhancement are secondary and tertiary goals, respectively. The guidelines and regulations for planning and management reflect these priorities. As a consequence regulations do not provide adequate guidance for fish, wildlife, and environmental planning and management of CRP land.
Economies of Scale--Decisions within a county regarding field selection for inclusion in the CRP ignore site location, geographic factors, and spatial patterns. In some cases, the result has been the creation of numerous small, isolated plots of unconnected, difficult to manage habitat that support minimal amounts of wildlife. In these instances, there is neither a critical mass for wildlife production nor for fee hunting use.
After reviewing the factors discussed above, the group divided them into two categories: positive factors and negative factors. Positive factors require a proactive, action-oriented approach to increase the knowledge, coordination, and scope of the CRP. Negative factors are constraints or weaknesses in the present CRP which need to be corrected.
Provide positive incentives to encourage maintenance of CRP land in desirable vegetation over the long term, including:
Reduce negative factors impeding CRP effectiveness for fish and wildlife enhancement, including:
Permit transitional economic use and management with environmental safeguards during the contract period.
Encourage the creation of "Conservation Land Links" (with leveraged funds) in developing management plans.
A "Conservation Land Link" (CLL) is the joining or linking together of two CRP fields to enlarge the protected area of habitat available to wildlife. The CLL operates on the principle that the sum of the parts is greater than the whole. Two underlying assumptions are that certain species of wildlife need a minimum amount or threshold level of habitat for survival and that small, isolated fields are not likely to support much wildlife.
The group devised the graphic below to provide visual substance to the "Conservation Land Link" concept. The graphic shows 2 adjacent farms. Farm A contains 3 isolated fields - one on each corner of the property except the southwest - plus a stream flowing from northwest to southeast. Farm B contains 1 CRP field on the southwest corner. Separately, the 4 isolated fields are too small for wildlife management or fee hunting. These fields were enrolled in the program during the early bid periods. But by installing CLL's, such as a filter strip along the stream connecting 2 parcels and a windbreak between 2 parcels on adjoining properties, soil/wind erosion can be reduced, non-point pollution controlled, and wildlife production enhanced.
Forming CLL's using other parcels to connect CRP fields would be an added expense to the federal government since no grain subsidy savings would off-set costs. To defray the added expense, state and local government or private entity cost-sharing would be encouraged. In many cases, state resources, ideas, and programs are available to supplement or leverage federal efforts.
CLL planning and implemenation would rely on the knowledge and expertise of county Soil and Water Conservation District personnel. They would be responsible for identifying linkable pieces of the CRP jig-saw puzzle, leveragable sources of funding, and priority projects.
On the federal level, CRP rules for selection in all future bid periods should require examination of locational factors. Bids for erosive fields adjacent to fields already in the CRP program should be granted higher priority for selection in order to leverage wildlife production and management in accordance with the "Conservation Land Link" concept.
The Third Forum suggested a number of initiatives, including plans for communications to member organizations, to other concerned groups, to policy makers, and to the interested public. Actions suggested for GLF member organizations contained in the "Roles for GLF Member Organizations" sections of the Issue Group reports above will be encouraged and facilitated by the Forum Executive Committee, working through representatives, officers, and governing boards of member organizations. These opportunities to influence implementation of CRP and development of commodity and conservation policies provide scope for coordinated involvement by a broad coalition of grazing land interests.
Forum Reports--An Executive Summary, highlighting CRP and grazing lands conservation and the conclusions of each Issue Working Group, was produced by a team of writers and published in November 1988. A large number of copies of the Executive Summary are being distributed within the member organizations and to interested groups and individuals.
This report documenting the Third Grazing Lands Forum is available for limited distribution. For more information about either of these reports, contact the GLF Executive Secretary.
Fee Busby, Executive Secretary
Winrock International
Route 3
Morrilton, AR 72110-9537
(501) 727-5435
Internal Communications--Two initiatives to improve communication between Forum member organizations suggested at the Second Forum were instituted.
In addition, a special effort is being made to inform interested groups and individuals about the Forum's goals, objectives, and activities. Participation and membership of organizations with concerns about grazing land issues are actively being sought on a one-to-one basis by the GLF.
The Fourth Forum--The Fourth Grazing Lands Forum will discuss "Agricultural Policy Impacts on Grazing Lands," at Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, on October 30-November 2, 1989. This Forum will relate the previous three Forums (water quality, multiple use, and CRP) to potential revisions in agricultural legislation and policy. Organizations or individuals interested in participating should contact Fee Busby, Executive Secretary at Winrock International or one of the Forum's other officers (see Appendix II).
This topic encompasses all information needs about the CRP program including basic research, policy research, and program evaluation and monitoring. Two subtopics involve the impacts that CRP is having on the resource currently and over the longer term and information needs to make the program work better.
What do we need to know about CRP's impacts?
What do we need to know to make CRP work?
This topic considers the fate of CRP lands after the 10-year contracts expire. Subtopics include economic, social, and legislative factors that will influence future use of CRP lands, and possible roles for CRP land in future livestock production.
What factors will affect future uses of CRP lands?
What is the role of CRP land in future livestock production?
This topic deals with the need for and means of managing grass stands established as permanent cover on CRP lands, particularly management strategies that do not depend on grazing as a tool. Subtopics include needs for management, management strategies to improve the quality of vegetative cover, and other management needs.
What management of CRP lands under contract is needed?
How can we get high quality vegetative cover?
What are other management issues?
This topic deals with ways to use CRP land during the 10-year contract period that will lead to long-term non-crop uses after contracts terminate. It does not deal directly with management of the land for these uses, but the economic and resource implications of the uses themselves. Subtopics include potential for grazing and nongrazing uses.
Should there be grazing use of CRP land under contract?
Should CRP land be used for non-grazing uses under contract?
This topic considers adjustments in or expansions of the existing CRP program to increase CRP's utility for improving grazing lands. Subtopics include extension extension of CRP to longer contract periods, extension to other kinds of land, and modification of associated commodity program provisions to improve the effectiveness of CRP.
Should CRP contracts be extended?
Will commodity program requirements force plowing of CRP lands?
Should CRP eligibility be expanded?
This topic considers the management and use of CRP lands to achieve the wildlife and environmental goals of the CRP program. Subtopics include management for wildlife and grazing use impacts on wildlife.
How should wildlife habitat on CRP land be managed?
How would grazing on CRP land impact wildlife habitat?
Individual membership in the Grazing Lands Forum entitles you to participate in the annual Forum and other meetings scheduled throughout the year. Individual members will receive copies of the Forum Executive Summary and Full Report, as well as the "Grazing Lands Forum Newsletter" published 3 times a year. Annual dues for individual sustaining membership are $12.
Name:
Street Address:
City: State:
Zip Code: Telephone Number Work: ( )
Home: ( )
Organizational Affiliation(s):