|
| | ||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| HOME | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SUBSCRIBE | NEWSSTAND LOCATIONS | ||||
| ||||
|
|
| | |
Groups united in questioning CSP rules Tuesday, February 17, 2004
Agri News staff writer
DES MOINES -- The Conservation Security Program's proposed rules don't follow the law's intent and changes are needed was the message delivered by 40 people who spoke at last week's USDA-sponsored listening session in Des Moines.
"I've seen something very interesting here today,'' said Dan Brutsche, a Coon Rapids farmer. "I think I've seen the independent image of the Iowa farmer completely shattered. I see Iowa CCI, Farmers Union, Farm Bureau, commodity and livestock groups all united on their opinion. I'm glad to see it for a change.''
Amy Miller and her husband, Mike Natvig, farm 420 acres organically in Howard County. They use numerous conservation practices to raise row crops, small grains and speciality crops. They also produce organic pork and rotationally graze beef cows.
"My biggest concern is the limitation of participation to certain watersheds,'' Miller said. "We would likely be excluded because we farm in a watershed with good quality ground water. It is unfair to penalize farmers for their historic conservation efforts."
If the requirements of the law can't be met due to funding restrictions, farmers who have done the most conservation should have first access to federal funding, Miller said. Base payments need to be set at a meaningful level.
"The low base payments ensure that small farms will not get enough financial reward from this program to bother to apply,'' Miller said. "Our farm could receive as little as $210 in annual base payments, and truly small farms would receive nothing.''
The rules also penalize farmers who graze tillable farmland.
"Over 95 percent of our land is tillable farmland, yet we only rowcrop 30 percent,'' Miller said. "We are strongly penalized by current commodity programs. Why do we need to be penalized under CSP on this issue as well?"
Lonnie Kemp, senior policy analyst at the Minnesota Project and co-chair of the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture, asked USDA to issue a revised rule because the proposal would drastically limit the number of farmers who could enroll, the kinds of conservation needs they could address and the amount of money they could receive.
"When rules were proposed in December, USDA noted they would issue a supplement to the proposed rules if full funding was restored," said Kemp, of Canton, Minn. "Now that has occurred, so it is important that the new rules be issued so the public can comment on the true program, one that will be a national program open to any farmer who meets its substantial conservation standards.''
Farmers should be financially rewarded for outstanding environmental performance, Kemp said. The proposed rule calls for pennies per acre for base payments, 5 percent cost-share payments for practices and enhanced payments well below costs.
"It's doubtful farmers would bother to apply with these low payments,'' Kemp said.
"Iowa Farm Bureau wholeheartedly supports the concepts of the Conservation Security Program, but the proposed rule falls far short of delivery to farmers the assistance they need to better safeguard environmental quality," said Craig Hill, a Milo farmer and IFB vice president.
Proposed rules place unnecessary restrictions on eligibility and will severely hamper the objectives of the program and the number of farmers able to participate, Hill said. Farm bureau opposes limiting eligibility based on watershed approach.
Don Elsbernd, an Allamakee County farmer and member of the Iowa Corn Growers Association board of directors, said under the proposed CSP rules eligibility is too restrictive and incentive payments are too low.
"Reward the best and motivate the rest is a challenge to me, but to meet that challenge I must be allowed to participate,'' Elsbernd said.
Preston, Minn., farmer Dave Serfling said the NRCS needs to publicize who the program's Tier 2 and Tier 3 farmers are so that when they go to their lenders they can tell them they are building the productivity of their land and increasing its value.
"It's my dream that my farmland will be valued more for the productivity of the soil than the size of its corn and soybean base,'' Serfling said. |
| | |
| |
Copyright 2006 Agri News
All Rights Reserved
