An Overview

1.  To be considered for the Farmland Stewardship Program,  properties generally must have high conservation values that are threatened because of encroaching development,  intensifying land use, or diminishing supply in a given area where the properties are located.  High conservation values stem not from any current or previous government action, but from past or present management practices that have allowed these conservation values to exist, coexist or even flourish along side the productive use of the land. While landowners may be motivated to maintain their conservation practices, they may not be prepared to sell their properties to a land trust or government agency or accept the restrictions, complexities, costs and permanent nature of a conservation easement or sale of development rights.

2. This program will establish long-term management plans on many thousands of acres of habitat that otherwise might  never be protected, nor prevented by law, rule or regulation from conversion to environmentally destructive uses. 

3. This program is designed to supplement and advance, and not replace, other existing conservation options and tools -- including public land acquisition, less-than-fee acquisition (including conservation easement and purchase of development rights programs), the "Safe Harbors" provisions of the Endangered Species Act and the conservation programs within the 1996 Farm Bill. 

4. The agreement document,  tone of negotiations and benefits to be derived by entering into the agreement must appeal to landowners and make them want to participate.

5. The flexibility of the approach means many more landowners will agree to participate.  Restrictive agreements, on the other hand, are likely to have many fewer participants.  Thus:  Many agreements covering many thousands of acres = large conservation benefit. Few agreements covering very few acres = small conservation benefit. 

6. Public access to private lands under contract is not a condition of the agreement.  It is an additional service that can be provided.   Where  landowners are willing to allow public access, such access should be negotiated.  Additional compensation over the base compensation for management services under the agreement may be needed.

7. Some monitoring is necessary to ensure compliance. Specific details should be negotiated.

8. This program represents a change in social behavior and public and private perception of the relationships between private landowners and government agencies.  This relationship must be crafted carefully to assure it is a good and successful one.

9. During negotiations, it is critical for local conservation districts, land trusts and government agencies to work to understand and respect the motivations and interests of private landowners, especially agricultural -- their desire to be left alone, to enjoy the peace and serenity of  their property, to be given incentives to work toward and achieve a goal (maintaining and improving habitats and other conservation values on their property), and the need for confidentiality of their business records.

10. Landowners are responsible for ensuring that the habitats and other important natural resources on their property are maintained. They should be provided the guidelines, technical assistance, and latitude to succeed.  Penalties for failing to honor their commitments and obligations under the agreement should be clear. The emphasis, however, should not be on "do's and don'ts," but on having the landowners take special effort to improve and even expand habitats and other natural resources and on compensating them accordingly.

1. The "Farmland Stewardship Agreement" is a long-term service contract providing government agencies considerable flexibility in managing important natural resources on private lands.  Any government contracting authority could negotiate a "Farmland Stewardship Agreement" with private landowners and use existing funds for contracts, services, management or conservation as compensation.

Landowner payments would be based on the value of the service. For example, if state and federal government agencies with landholdings in southwest Florida pay an average of $11 per acre per year -- not including administrative costs -- to manage public lands, then a similar payment could be made to a private contractor or landowner for the same services. As more services are provided (such as access for periodic public education activities or to carry out specific research projects), additional payments could be made in cash, property or tax credits.

2.  If both parties agree, a Contingent Value (or CV) analysis also can be conducted to determine the value of the resource to be maintained -- and its appreciated, ecologically improved value.  Using statistically valid samples of society, CV analyses have measured how much the public will pay for clean air, clean water, wetlands, open space and other natural resources.

3. The objectives of each agreement will vary and have to be negotiated based upon the individual characteristics of the property's natural resources and the needs of the parties involved.  Hence, some agreements may incorporate management practices to advance single species or multi-species recovery goals.

4. The agreement should appeal to large numbers of private landowners. It should be neither coercive or invasive; instead, it should use annual payments or tax credits or both to compensate private landowners for conservation practices.

5. It should be stressed -- and clearly understood --  the agreement will reduce operating costs and/or improve the revenues of landowners for maintaining natural habitat and other resources. If  tax credits, annual payments and other forms of compensation under the agreement are sufficiently attractive, landowners will not be tempted to convert these resources to other uses.

6. As Ernie Caldwell, Vice President of Government and Environmental Affairs for Berry Holding Corporation in Winter Park, Florida, and an original member of the Landowner Working Group, observes:

"The Farmland Stewardship Program is something most landowners and producers should be willing to accept, even want to accept, because of the way it is written and because it will pay them carry out the type of management practices that will benefit both the environment and their operations. I know of producers who don't carry out some management practices now, even though they could, because the expense is too great and there is no way of passing on any of these costs to the consumer. In fact, the only way to cover these costs is to take them out of the bottom line. The way the bottom line is in ag these days, there simply is no room for any expense or requirement that doesn't pay its way."