A Comparison with
the Conservation Security Program

The Conservation Security Program (Sec. 2001 of the 2002 Farm Bill)  greatly expands conservation opportunities on private lands and -- for the first time -- provides payments for conservation on working lands. Stewardship America is 100% supportive of the CSP.

The Farmland Stewardship Program (proposed through Sec. 256 of both the House-passed Farm Bill HR 2646 and of S. 1673 in the U.S. Senate) is different primarily because it is a "blending tool" that brings together disparate programs and programs that previously did not or could not work on agricultural lands (say, because the programs were designed for another state or another type of conservation activity). 

FSP tailors these programs to the specific needs of individual parcels of land, and adjusts overlapping administrative and regulatory requirements that have previously limited their use on ag lands.  The FSP is designed to complement and work together with every other program, including private programs and local programs, as well as the CSP.

The FSP is designed so that every $1 put into the program creates enough leverage to pay a producer $2 (or more) for the services and practices that are implemented on his or her property.  These “service fees” will be paid to producers in part from existing funds and programs at the federal, state and local levels, in part from matching funds and with new funds from private sources.  In many cases, these programs and their funds currently cannot be used by ag producers or cannot be applied to local conditions. 

The CSP and FSP are complimentary and supportive of each other, not in competition with each other.  The FSP and CSP can work separately. They also can work together (for example, the FSP can be implemented under Tier 3 of the CSP.  Alternatively, the CSP can be combined into a FSP contract along with other programs – as part of a one-stop, one-application process).

Both are equally important and both are needed to address conservation needs and opportunities on private lands.

This point was stressed by one reviewer who, after reviewing this page, wrote back to say: "I don't believe that CSP and FSP are in competition with each other.  In fact, [they do not have] really comparable similar provisions, but rather [have] complementary different provisions.  Thus to set up a comparison chart leads the reader to false conclusions about options."

An excellent point!  The following chart was created because several people asked for information on the distinctions between the CSP and FSP.  Some asked if the FSP could replace the CSP or visa versa, or if the two concepts could be combined.  The answer is:  no they can't, because they are separate and unique ... and have complementary different provisions.

The CSP provides funding for conservation on working lands -- funding that otherwise would not be available through any other program that can be combined into an FSP.  On the other hand, the FSP makes the CSP a much more locally-based, locally-driven program and, thus, fixes  problems that some groups have objected to in the CSP.

Your comments and ideas are welcome (send email)

A candid assessment of the two programs can be viewed at http://privatelands.org/Brad_Crabtree_email.htm  The assessment is written by a North Dakota sheep and cattle farmer, who headed up a Consensus Council to develop a program to address years of repeated and devastating flood losses in the Dakotas, Minnesota and the Canadian Province of Manitoba, which embodies many concepts in both the Farmland Stewardship Program and Conservation Security Program.

Ms. Jamie Clover Adams, Secretary, Kansas Department of Agriculture, Topeka, KS. on behalf of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture  Provides summary of concepts described in NASDA's "New Stewardship Initiative," above.

Mr. R. Max Peterson, Executive Vice President, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington, DC  Ties in fish and wildlife component.  Stresses need for partnerships.

Mr. Bill Horan, president, Iowa Corn Growers Association, Rockwell City, IA, on behalf of the Crop Coalition  Emphasizes support for maintaining "flexibility for local implementation to maximize both participation and effectiveness."

Mr. John Lincoln, president, New York Farm Bureau, Bloomfield, NY, on behalf of the American Farm Bureau Federation See especially page 3; text from bottom of page 6 through page 7; and recommendations on page 18.

Testimony by a coalition of conservation and hunting groups, led by Ducks Unlimited, is summarized in the following article from the June 18, 2001 New York Times:

Unlikely Allies Press to Add Conservation to Farm Bill, New York Times, June 18, 2001, page A11.