Farmers Club Journal Article (DRAFT) I am particularly interested in how countries outside of Europe address agri-environmental issues and I was fortunate enough to obtain a Farmer’s Club Charitable Trust award that allowed me to complete a short project in the United States of America (USA) during the summer of 2003. I set off with the intention of investigating the range of agri-environment options available to US farmers in three contrasting geographical areas, pastureland, rangeland and cultivated arable areas. For examples of each of these, I chose the states Pennsylvania, South Dakota and Illinois to conduct fieldwork [See Figures 1-3]. My aim was to evaluate the availability and provision of technical advice and financial support available to US farmers that was specifically related to agri-environment schemes. This would then allow a comparison of the findings to the situation faced by farmers in England. The USA is a large country covering 1.9 billion acres and 1.4 billion acres (71%) is classed as rural land, composed of cropped areas, forest, pasture and rangeland. The main federal agency responsible of the interests of farmers is the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) USDA has a number of agencies and the one responsible for providing conservation advice to farmers is the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), which was formed from the Soil Conservation Service in 1994. The nearest English equivalent would be the DEFRA agency, the Rural Development Service (RDS), responsible for the delivery and administration of English agri-environment schemes. The purpose of NRCS is to provide technical assistance to farmers and landowners for the conservation, maintenance and enhancement of natural resources. The organization has a wide variety of skills and expertise to cope with the different types of agriculture and land use across the USA. NRCS has a total staff number of more than 12,000 across the USA. There are central offices in Washington DC, but each state has also has an office which contains specific scientific, technical and administrative staff. The function of these offices is to provide policy and technical support to the local offices in each county, or groups of counties within a state. Within each county office there are administrative support staff and a District Conservationist (DC) It is also possible that there is an Assistant District Conservationist or a new recruit undergoing a training programme. The District Conservationist is the technical expert and the equivalent UK position would be an RDS Conservation Advisor. The DC will undertake farm visits, assist with applications for conservation programmes and coordinate contractors employed to carry out agreed management options. In the US, at the federal level, there has been an awareness of conservation issues associated with agriculture for almost seventy years. Agri-environment schemes are referred to as “conservation programmes”. The concept of a “scheme” in the USA appeared to suggest something underhand and was a source of amusement for many of the people who helped with the project! Programmes are generally created under a “Farm Bill” which is a generic term for an item of US legislation that is designed to ensure a consistent and plentiful domestic food supply and this has a major impact on individual farmers. The most recent Farm Bill, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act was passed in 2002. Federal agri-environment support for conservation programmes under Farm Bills take two main forms. In the first, payments are made to farmers for a fixed period to take land out of production and manage it in a specific way, in a similar manner to the Countryside Stewardship Scheme in England. This type of action is sometimes referred to as an “easement”. In the second, farmers receive a fixed proportion of the capital cost of conservation work in ‘cost sharing’ programs. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) allows farmers voluntarily sign up to a long term agreement to plant vegetation covers that prevent soil erosion, improve quality of water and provide wildlife habitat. Examples of management options include planting riparian buffers on land alongside water courses and establishing windbreaks and shelters [Figures 7 & 8]. In return, farmers receive an annual rental, the
maximum limit for which is based upon the relative productivity of soils within the county of application. Farmers can offer rentals lower than the maximum and improve their chances of acceptance. Cost share of up to 50% for establishment of the vegetation cover can also be claimed. The Environmental Quality Incentives Programme (EQUIP) is a voluntary programme that provides farmers with technical and financial assistance to implement structural and management changes to a farm in way s that promote the agricultural production and improve environmental quality [Figures 4-6]. EQIP provides farmers with annual financial incentives (up to 3 years) and cost shares of up to 90%. The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) allows farmers and landowners voluntarily apply to enter a cost share agreement to develop wildlife habitat on upland, wetland, riparian and aquatic habitat areas on their property. In association with NRCS, a wildlife development plan is constructed which becomes the basis of the legal agreement. Participants may enter into 5, 10 or 15 year agreements. Applications are ranked in accordance with individual state rules. Since 1998, 11,000 landowners have enrolled 1.6 million acres into the scheme. The major strength of the US approach to agri-environment schemes (or conservation programmes) is the availability of resources. The substantial US operating and programme budgets allow effective delivery of a range of initiatives. The technical expertise of NRCS is very impressive and District Conservationists have to undergo a minimum three year training programme. US farmers know that they are receiving the best possible technical advice. Some of the management options like the construction of terraces and grass waterways to control erosion require a high degree of technical input [See Figures 4-6]. There is also a significant focus on integrating conservation options with the existing farming system to improve efficiency (eg through EQIP), in addition to addressing environmental concerns. Another advantage of the US system is the formation of partnerships between federal government, state government, quasi-government and non-government organizations. There was a great deal of overlap in the activities and remits of these bodies. Although this relationship initially appeared to be very complex, it was actually to the farmer’s advantage, since funding for projects was available from a wide variety of sources. There appeared to be a genuine atmosphere of co-operation between the various bodies and a willingness to help farmers and improve rural life. For example, Soil & Water Conservation Districts are local areas formed under state (not federal) law since 1937. They operate as independent organisation promoting the principles of conservation agriculture through the provision of technical advice and assistance. They co-operate with NRCS under a memorandum of understanding with USDA. Soil and Water Conservation Districts are important in putting forward the local agenda for nationally identified problems and challenges. They work very closely with NRCS, often sharing the same office building and in some cases sharing work to mutual advantage. Soil & Water Conservation Districts also provide education and a wide range of other services such as nutrient management, co-ordinating improvements in gravel roads etc. There are approximately 3000 Soil and Water Conservation Districts across the USA and have their own national association. The closest UK equivalent would be a Wildlife Trust, although this comparison should be treated with caution, as their terms of reference are very different. The relationship developed between NRCS and farmers in the US is also worthy of note. The county offices were easily accessible and because the buildings were shared with other relevant organizations (eg Farm Service Agency, Soil and Water Conservation Districts), farmers were more likely to drop in and discuss potential ideas for projects. There was some indication that small proportions of farmers in the US shared the same distrust of the government in the same way as many farmers in England and were reluctant to encourage NRCS visits (or any other federal government official!). It was very refreshing to see the US approach and experience the very positive attitudes of their farmers, advisors and policymakers. There are examples of good practice that would benefit many farmers in the UK and I would urge anyone interested to go and see the set up for themselves.
Figure 1. A typical pastoral landscape in Pennsylvania.
Figure 2. Rangeland in South Dakota.
Figure 3: Corn and Soya growing in Illinois.
Figure 4. Bunded and roofed barn to minimise pollution from animal wastes at Hess Dairy Farm, Pennsylvania funded by EQIP.
Figure 5. Grass waterway used to direct flow of water down slopes at Hess Dairy Farm, Pennsylvania.
Figure 6. Cultivated terraces designed to reduce erosion at Hess Dairy Farm, Pennsylvania.
Figure 7. Permanent vegetation cover (behind fence) to reduce pollution to watercourse at Palmyra Farm, Pennsylvania.
Figure 8. Newly planted forested riparian buffer to reduce pollution to watercourse at Palmyra Farm, Pennsylvania,
Figure 9. Hog slats and fence used to create cattle drinking facility at Palmyra Farm, Pennsylvania.