Excerpt on proposed 
"New Stewardship Initiative" 

National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) 
2002 Farm Policy Initiative 
Draft Working Document 
April 13, 2001

Note: Text in blue has been added for emphasis and to highlight statements that support the Resource Conservation Agreement concept.

The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, (NASDA) is a non-profit, nonpartisan organization representing the 50 state departments of agriculture, and those of the territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The organization was founded in 1915 and has maintained an office in Washington, D.C. since 1968, where it coordinates its activities and monitors federal developments. NASDA's mission is to support and promote the American agriculture industry, and to protect consumers and the environment through the development, implementation, and communication of sound public policy and programs. NASDA's 2002 Farm Policy Initiative, which has been more than a year in the making, is in keeping with that mission.

The 2002 Farm Policy Initiative, "Ensuring Profitability," is a comprehensive set of proposals for Congress and the Bush Administration to consider as expiration nears for the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996 and debate on a new farm bill begins. Its purpose is to contribute to a wide-ranging and constructive debate on the upcoming farm bill -- the first farm bill of this new century. As the chief agricultural officers in their states, NASDA members understand the importance of the entire food and agricultural sector -- not only to their states but to the national economy as well. The average American only has to work for 40 days to earn enough money to pay for their food supply for an entire year. That leaves Americans with more disposable income than any other nation in the world to pay for new cars, houses and entertainment.

Agriculture has been an important force in the great American experiment. In the early days of the Republic, our young Nation's manifest destiny was achieved in large part through agriculture. More to the point, policy decisions for and about agriculture, from the Homestead Act to the Land Grant college system that helped settle the West, were essential building blocks of our society. Now, as America faces the information age and the technology revolution of the 21st century, policy makers must not forget the agricultural heritage that helped our nation achieve its place in the world. Even today, agriculture remains our nation's leading trade surplus industry and an important economic engine in many of our states.

However, the business of producing food and fiber for America -- and the world - is undergoing unprecedented change. Economic, environmental, consumer, and technological forces beyond the control of individual farmers and ranchers drive this change. Federal and state policies have the potential to help producers -- and our nation's economy -- by harnessing these forces. Conversely, policy missteps can mire our producers in place while change drives the agricultural market of the 2lst century past them. Never before have the stakes been so high for American agriculture. To ensure the future viability of our nation's production agriculture industry, it is clear that state and federal policy makers must work together. That is the spirit of this document.

NASDA's six guiding principles are:

Profitability and Viability: Very simply put, farmers and ranchers cannot provide an adequate, nor safe, food supply to this nation's consumers if farming and ranching enterprises are not economically viable. Moreover, unprofitable farms cannot provide the environmental stewardship that is necessary to protect our natural resources.

Level Playing Field: A truly financially healthy and competitive agricultural economy can only result from a marketplace -- domestic and global -- where efficient, productive farmers and ranchers have economic marketing and bidding power equitable to their assets and production capabilities.

Non-Trade Distorting: American producers are among the most efficient in the world. Truly open international -- and domestic - markets would not only benefit U.S. producers, but are a foundation upon which U.S. agriculture relies. Thus, NASDA's recommended polices are intended to be market-based and non-trade distorting, which means that certain safeguards may be pursued, such as access to information and reasonable but certain anti-trust enforcement.

Flexibility in Regulation: One size does not fit all. Government policies and programs should be flexible, and to the maximum extent possible, based on voluntary participation through incentive-based approaches. While regulations should be appropriately based on national goals, they should also be controlled and implemented at the state level.

Sound Science: Politically motivated science is perhaps the number one enemy of modem production agriculture. Producers face an assault from extremist environmental zealots, EU bureaucrats, and other speciously motivated activists, all armed with dubious studies and implausible claims based on politically or economically motivated science on issues ranging from pesticide use, to genetically modified organisms, to nutritional claims. Sound, peer reviewed science must be the standard for government regulations and trade negotiating positions.

Maximum Delivery Through States: New and expanded programs should emphasize the role of states in terms of delivery. Particular emphasis should be placed on partnerships and pilot projects.

New Stewardship Initiative

The concept of this initiative is to compensate producers for implementing various on-farm conservation practices that enhance environmental goals. The program would be designed as a "block grant" program, with state departments of agriculture administering the program as the lead agency. USDA would be given the authority to enter into "cooperative agreements" with individual states.

NASDA believes this program would give state and local governments more flexibility, tools, and resources to implement agriculture conservation priorities, while providing maximum benefits to producers. This initiative would build on existing planning systems and infrastructure, and complement not duplicate current programs.

The New Stewardship Initiative will:

• Recognize producer activities that enhance protection of land, water, air and wildlife and at the same time, provide public environmental benefits
• Provide contract opportunities and payments to producers on an annual basis
• Base payments on the costs and benefits of conservation practices
• Provide maximum flexibility for states to set priorities
• Coordinate and consolidate total resource management plans
• Protect individual producer privacy and data confidentiality
• Provide program benefits to all producers, including specialty crops and livestock (which includes beef cattle, dairy cattle, poultry, swine, sheep, goats, aquaculture, and bees)

NASDA recommends an annual spending level of $8 billion for the New Stewardship Initiative, which includes the $4 billion dollars earmarked for specialty crop producers.

Stewardship Initiative Program

1.  Working Partnerships between Agriculture and the Environment

**This is a framework document and remains a work in progress. Narrative language and policy details are still being developed and refined based upon ongoing Committee meetings, discussions and comments.

Introduction

Agriculture is critical to the health and prosperity of our Nation. Farming and ranching are the foundations of our $1 trillion food and fiber business and nearly $60 billion in annual exports. Agricultural products are a major contributor in our country's trade balance. This vast industry is essential not only to the economic health of rural America, but also to almost 16% of total economic activity in the country, and almost 18% of the country's jobs.

This economic mainstay is based in the vast land resources of this country. In the lower 48 states, more than 60 percent of the public and private lands is in cropland, pastureland, and rangeland.. This percentage jumps dramatically if you include the privately held forest land that many landowners manage. A majority of these "working" agricultural lands--more than 900 million acres--are in the care of farmers, ranchers and their families.

Our country and the world depend on these working lands for its much needed food and fiber. But our country is also looking to these lands for something else -- a contribution to the enhancement of our environment and natural resources. NASDA wholeheartedly supports this objective. American agriculture is dependent upon continued access to clean air and water and fertile land for its viability.

Significant gains have been made in addressing traditional agricultural environmental concerns over the past decade -- soil erosion is down, wetlands protections have increased, wildlife habitat has been enhanced. During the same period, the scope and range of environmental problems have expanded, farm practices and technology has changed, and public awareness has increased. Our challenge today is how to maintain an economically viable and healthy working agricultural landscape producing the food and fiber on which the country depends, while improving the environmental benefits that our country seeks. The issue is not whether to protect the environment, but which methods and approaches to take.

Unlike most developed land uses, agricultural land uses have the potential to create many opportunities for enhancing environmental protection and natural resources. Many farmers and ranchers actively seek opportunities to mange their land to support environmental objectives. Many more would do so if provided with the right incentives and support. Too often, environmental policies are thought to be effective only if they use a "command and control" regulatory model. This approach has become an increasingly questionable method. 

NASDA favors a flexible, voluntary, and incentive-based approach that will allow states to evaluate environmental risks on agricultural lands and develop and implement plans to address those risks. Equally important is the need to establish working partnerships with local, state and federal agencies, conservation districts, private businesses, communities and other interest groups. States often tackle environmental quality issues before they reach national attention and federal efforts. Making progress in the 21st century will require new ways of thinking and working not just harder, but smarter. This will advance the environmental goals that the public seeks--while improving the environmental performance of farms and ranches and the economic health of producers.

State of the Land

Congress underscored the importance of the nations private and nonfederal land resources when it passed the Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act (RCA) in 1977, directing USDA to develop a national program to protect and conserve soil, water and related natural resources on these lands. That same year, the Soil Conservation Service (now the Natural Resources Conservation Service) conducted the first National Resources Inventory (NRI) to scientifically measure the status, condition and trends of natural resources in the United States. The NRI, and other ongoing inventories and assessments conducted over the past thirty years show marked improvements in soil erosion control, water and air quality and wetlands protection. However, the 2000 NRI report indicates a leveling off of improvement over the last three to five years. At the same time, a growing population and a rising standard of living are putting more pressures on our resource base.

• Since 1985, significant advances have been made in soil erosion reduction and increasing productivity. Much of the gain in controlling soil erosion is a result of conservation compliance, the adoption of conservation tillage, and the enrollment of land in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP). Since 1996, however, rates of erosion reduction have leveled off. Excessive erosion still occurs on over 100 million acres of cropland. Leaching and runoff of soil and chemical components continue to be concerns.
• In 2000, 37 percent of the cropland in the United States was planted using some form of conservation tillage, meaning 30 percent of the ground was covered with residue after planting. Although this represents a significant increase from the early 1980s when conservation tillage became popular, the rate of growth in adoption has remained flat in recent years.
• According to EPA, about 40 percent of the nation's stream, lakes and estuaries are not meeting clean water goals to support fishing and swimming. Runoff from urban and agricultural lands is cited as a primary source of pollution.
• From 1992 to 1997, over two million acres of agricultural land was lost to urbanization each year.
• Grazing land--rangeland, pasture and grazed forestland--and private non-industrial forestland comprise roughly 920 million acres of land use. In 1995, animal agriculture accounted for nearly half of the total cash receipts from agricultural products. Privately owned non-industrial forestland accounts for approximately one half of the nation's total timber supply. Since 1982, grazing land has declined by 26 million acres, with most of the loss occurring in the rapidly developing West and Southwest. Grazing land resources continue to be threatened by land-use conversion, erosion, brush and weeds, and invasive species.

Although much progress has been made, improvements in the status and condition of land, water, plants and wildlife have slowed. Federal resources for conservation have declined. In addition, the public is increasingly looking toward agriculture to address a growing agenda of environmental issues, such as urban sprawl, air quality, invasive species, and biodiversity. Other emerging or ongoing issues include global warming/carbon emissions, hypoxia, pfiesteria, and pesticide use. Federal agencies are greatly expanding and targeting their regulatory activities to agricultural operations. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently proposed new regulations for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) that would require Clean Water Act (CWA) permits and nutrient management plans for an estimated 300,000 farm operations by the year 2008. Other federal laws are increasingly impacting farmers and ranchers including the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Clean Air Act and Kyoto Climate Change Treaty, the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA), and the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA). Current policies and programs simply cannot address these myriad situations or needs.

All of these factors point to the need for rethinking, retooling and restructuring agricultural environmental and conservation policy. New approaches and a better "toolbox" of instruments are needed to meet these changing problems, objectives and goals. For the past two decades, USDA agricultural environmental policy has traditionally relied on only two tools -- (1) economic incentives for long-term land retirement, and (2) compliance mechanisms for soil conservation on land remaining in production and to discourage conservation of wetlands to crop protection. USDA has also provided cost-sharing and technical assistance, but these programs are significantly underfunded and smaller in terms of total expenditures and acreage affected. The 2002 Farm Bill debate gives us the unique opportunity to design the next generation of programs and tools for agricultural conservation and environmental management. This is an investment which will advance the environmental goals that the public seeks--while improving the economic health and environmental performance of farms and ranches.

A New Vision for Agricultural Stewardship

NASDA has closely reviewed the major conservation programs of the 1996 Farm Bill. From our own personal experience and from working directly with farmers and ranchers, we know how these programs are working, and what improvements are needed. Looking beyond these important programs, we also examined new opportunities that could harness a new generation of environmental stewardship. NASDA calls for a bold, new initiative to address agricultural conservation, natural resource and environmental priorities through state partnerships. This new Agricultural Stewardship Program would be a "block grant" type initiative that would give state and local governments greater flexibility, innovative tools, and resources to implement agricultural conservation priorities. The initiative builds on existing planning systems and infrastructure-- it does not duplicate existing programs. Our intent is to fill in the gaps of existing programs. NASDA also offers a set of recommendations to revitalize current conservation programs to make them more efficient and cost-effective.

Working Partnerships Between Agriculture and the Environment

Although existing conservation programs are generally working well, additional approaches are needed to achieve greater environmental improvements. States have often tackled environmental quality problems before they reach national and federal attention. The range of environmental challenges faced by farmers and ranchers today and in the future are complex, involve a higher level of scientific scrutiny and uncertainty, and are influenced a diverse mix of stakeholders and interests. Solutions will require the ability to work with diverse interests throughout a community, watershed, or other geographic area. Current conservation programs can not address these situations and needs.

Agricultural "Green Payment" Stewardship Program

The Committee recommends a new Agricultural "green payment" Stewardship Program. The concept of the program is to compensate producers for implementing various on-farm conservation practices that enhance environmental goals. This proposal can be (1) promoted as a "stand alone" document; (2) combined with NASDAs farm safety net and risk management proposals; or (3) combined with NASDAs Ag-Flex proposal.

The Committee is considering the following names for the new program: "Critical Resource Incentive Compacts" (CRIC), "Resource Stewardship Voluntary Program (RSVP), and Agricultural Conservation Environmental Stewardship (ACES) Program.

Benefits of the Agricultural Stewardship Program

• Would reach more producers and provide greater environmental benefits.
• Flexibility will allow states to address most critical issues.
• Resources can be targeted.
• Increases local buy-in to find solutions.
• Preventive measures are more cost-effective and offer more economic returns.
• State/local leadership/partnerships result in better coordination of conservation efforts.
• Simplifies program delivery.
• Addresses expanding list of new problems, i.e. carbon sequestration, hypoxia, etc.

Reasons for Providing Financial Assistance Commitments to Producers for Stewardship

• Many conservation practices have high capital or management input costs, but do not generate additional revenues. Agriculture is not organized in a fashion that allows increased costs of production to be passed on to consumers. As such, on-farm expenditures for conservation compete directly with servicing farm debt, and other family financial needs.
• The public benefits from stewardship of farmland enhancements can be significant, i.e. greater wildlife populations, better recreation, improved water quality, etc.
• Increased regulation and a growing list of environmental requirements are demanding agricultural environmental enhancements that are beyond the short-term and long-term economic payback.
• Implementing more stringent and more complex standards may increase the need for more costly approaches/technologies/alternatives.

General Program Concepts:

• Program would be a "block grant" type initiative.
• State departments of agriculture are the lead agency to administer the program. This would give state and local governments greater flexibility, tools, and resources to implement agricultural conservation priorities.
• USDA would have authority to enter into "cooperative agreements" with states.
• Program would build on existing planning systems and infrastructure -- not duplicate current programs. The intent is to fill in the gaps of existing programs.

Key Elements:

• Program should be voluntary, incentive-based, and founded on sound science with "measurable" results;
• Emphasize program as a public benefit, rather than a supplemental income program;
• Recognize activities that enhance protection of land, water, air, and wildlife;
• Payments should be based on financial costs to the producer and environmental benefits to society;
• Contract payments should be made on an annual basis;
• Provides maximum flexibility for states to set priorities;
• Defines the delivery system and/or options;
• Builds on existing planning systems and does not duplicate existing programs;
• Protects individual producer privacy and data confidentiality.

Payments:

• Contract payments would be made on an annual basis.
• There would be no limits on payments.
• States would set priorities and target resources where needed. States should have flexibility to allocate dollars between payments to producers and/or technical assistance based on needs/priorities.