 |
| Editor’s
NOTE:
We serve a diverse audience of readers engaged
in regenerative, organic and sustainable agriculture
at many levels for many reasons. We want to hear
from you about the issues that are important to
your life and work, and your vision for agriculture
that builds a strong future.
We run selected comments from readers in this
space. Please tell us who you are, with name,
address and phone number for verification. Sending
correspondence to us conveys a right to us to
publish it as is, or in a form edited for length
and/or style. Opinions expressed in this space
do not necessarily represent the perspective of
The New Farm® or The Rodale Institute®.
If you have something important to say about
agriculture in a sustainable global food system,
please -- speak
to us.
NF
|
|
One thing that is seldom discussed is how effective are these
various programs. There has been little critiquing of the
ultimate conservation value of these programs. Nearly all
of these conservation efforts do accomplish some positive
conservation results, but often at an extremely high price
tag, and often without lasting results.
The one program I have reviewed extensively over the years
is the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) which pays farmers
not to plow up highly erodible lands. In the first place,
if the Clean Water Act were actually enforced, the plowing
of highly erodible lands would probably be illegal, because
this is one of the major sources of non-point water pollution.
Beyond that fact, the CRP is supported by many conservation
groups because its presumed benefits for wildlife—ground
nesting and grassland birds for example, and so on. Wildlife
does use CRP lands, but the conservation benefits are coincidental—not
the major thrust of the program. In some places, CRP lands
have made substantial contributions to higher wildlife production
and probably are a wise investment. But in many other areas
the money expended has questionable benefits—particularly
long term benefits—and few are reviewing these cost
benefits since there are few critics of the program.
There are two apparent reasons: Conservation groups are so
anxious to have any money spent on wildlife, they accept less
than stellar results. Some just don't know about all the negatives,
in part because agriculture is a big booster of these programs
since it's a way to get more money to farmers without violating
ag subsidy issues in international trade and because most
farmers only enroll lands that aren't that productive for
commodity production anyway—in other words, it's no
skin off their back to enroll these lands since they make
more money reliably by milking the government than growing
crops.
For instance, lands are not enrolled based on their overall
value to wildlife; in many cases there is limited wildlife
benefit and in some cases some net wildlife losses. Many of
these CRP parcels end up being patches of unplowed ground
in the midst of plowed habitat, making them extremely vulnerable
to edge effects—invasion by exotic weeds, etc.—also
easy targets for predators. Coyotes, skunks, etc., quickly
learn that if they go to the small patches of unplowed ground
they can find lots of bird nests. In the end, even though
someone may find there is a lot of use of these lands by birds,
the question you need to ask is what is the net recruitment
to the population. In many instances, these parcels become
predator pits—in other words, more birds are ultimately
killed than are produced, and thus birds nesting on these
CRP lands becomes a net loss to the populations.
Furthermore, since these contracts are only for 10 years,
the benefits—if they exist—are not permanent.
What good is it if you produce, say, more ducks or sharptail
grouse for 10 years, but a price hike in grain causes all
these lands to be plowed up at the end of the 10-year contracts—and
given the emphasis on ethanol we are seeing, we may well see
the vast majority of these lands revert back to agricultural
use. The money we are spending on the CRP is huge—an
average of $1.5 billion a year. To put that into perspective,
we spend about $300 million (not billion) to operate all 500-plus
national wildlife areas in the country. The average CRP payment
of $300 an acre—or about $3000 an acre over the 10 years
of the contract—is enough in many parts of the country
to purchase these lands outright. Would we be better off just
buying these generally unproductive and highly erodible lands
and putting them into permanent public ownership? That would
permanently ensure their protection from agricultural overuse
(and of course provide more public access and direct wildlife
benefits.
No one is asking these kinds of questions about CRP—everyone
from progressives to conservatives seems eager to support
these programs without questioning if this is the most effective
way to spend money or achieve the desired goals of reducing
soil erosion, protecting wildlife habitat and getting more
money to farmers outside the vehicle of agricultural subsidies.
George Wuerthner
Ecological Projects Director
Foundation for Deep Ecology |
