The NY Times has an article discussing how farmers are beginning a fast exodus from the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) since seeing a boom in the price of grain and soybeans.
( *Disclaimer: I have been a member of Ducks Unlimited for about 10 years and Quail Unlimited for some time as well. I hunt on and assist in the maintenance of restored habitat on a 100 acre farm here in KY. I am also affiliated with the Teddy Roosevelt Conservation partnership which is a major supporter of the CRP program and others like it. In other words, I am by no means a neutral party in this discussion.)
For those unfamiliar with the CRP program, what it entails are annual pay-outs to farmers to encourage them to keep some of their land fallow, or unused. Most CRP acerage is in the midwest and western U.S. As discussed in the article, this program has been championed by both hunters and environmentalists and has been responsible for a huge increase in the number of birds, particularly waterfowl. Times have changed though and the lure of higher dollars for crops verses CRP payments is hard to compete with.
Thousands of farmers are taking their fields out of the government’s biggest conservation program, which pays them not to cultivate. They are spurning guaranteed annual payments for a chance to cash in on the boom in wheat, soybeans, corn and other crops. Last fall, they took back as many acres as are in Rhode Island and Delaware combined.
Environmental and hunting groups are warning that years of progress could soon be lost, particularly with the native prairie in the Upper Midwest. But a broad coalition of baking, poultry, snack food, ethanol and livestock groups say bigger harvests are a more important priority than habitats for waterfowl and other wildlife. They want the government to ease restrictions on the preserved land, which would encourage many more farmers to think beyond conservation.
Kerry Dockter, a rancher in Denhoff, N.D., has about 450 acres of grassland in the program. “When this program first came about, it was a pretty good thing,” he said. “But times have definitely changed.”
The government payments, Mr. Dockter said, “aren’t even comparable anymore” to what he could make by working the land. He plans to devote some of his conservation acres to growing feed for his cows and some to grazing. He might also lease some land to neighbors.
As a hunter, I obviously believe the CRP program is important to the health of our sport. As a conservationist I also think the most responsible and Progressive thing for us to do is to take care of the wildlife we share this world with. There is little arguement that the program has been a tremendous success.
While few urban dwellers ever heard of Conservation Reserve, it found support among two important constituents: hunters had more land to roam and more wildlife to seek out, with the Agriculture Department estimating that the duck population alone rose by two million; and environmentalists were pleased, too. No one disputes that there are real environmental benefits from the program, especially on land most prone to erosion.
The program peaked late last summer, with more than 400,000 farmers receiving nearly $1.8 billion for idling 36.8 million acres. Put all that land together and it would be bigger than the state of New York.
While I passionatley support the CRP program and other habitat-restoration efforts, it is also hard to argue that we should ignore new strains on our market, many of which have been brought about by rising fuel costs and their trickle down effect.
Such problems were never contemplated when the Conservation Reserve was conceived as part of the 1985 Farm Bill. Participants bid to put their land in the program during special sign-ups, with the government selecting the acres most at risk environmentally. Average annual payments are $51 an acre. Contracts run for at least a decade and are nearly impossible to break - not that anyone wanted to until recently.
“Older farmers put their land in the program rather than renting to a younger farmer or selling,” said Dale Schuler, who grows wheat in Fort Benton, Mont. That made it difficult for farmers who wanted to expand as well as farm equipment dealers, supply co-ops and other services, which suffered declines in business.
“It’s certainly been a polarizing issue,” Mr. Schuler said. “Half the people love it and half the people hate it.”
While it is has been vital to have the cooperation of farmers, it is also important to understand that they have businesses to run. Because the CRP payments are growing smaller and smaller in comparison to the price for crops, opting out of the program seems to be the wisest economic decision.
The group doing the most to undermine this amiable coexistence is the farmers themselves. Last fall, when five million acres in Conservation Reserve came up for renewal, only half of them were re-entered. While the program has gained some high-priority land in the last few months, in part from an initiative to restore bobwhite quail habitats, the net loss is still more than two million acres.
That is just the beginning, warns Ducks Unlimited, a politically potent organization with more than half a million members in the United States. Ducks Unlimited is concerned about the three-quarters of a million acres of grassland that were removed from the program last year in the so-called duck factory in the Upper Midwest.
“We foresee a dramatic reduction,” said Mr. Ringelman, a conservation director for the association.
While the pressure is primarily coming from within at the moment, as food prices continue to climb, political pressure will be placed on farmers to start growing more.
“Another nine months of wheat at today’s prices and there will be political pressure on this program like you wouldn’t believe,” Mr. Magnusson said.
That pressure is exactly what the bakers and their allies are aiming for, saying the Conservation Reserve costs taxpayers and hurts consumers.
“This program is taking money out of your pocket twice a day,” said Jay Truitt, vice president for government affairs for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. “Do you think it’s right for you to pay so there’s more quail in Kansas?”
It is important to note that not all farm groups are against the CRP program.
The National Association of Wheat Growers is against, saying it believes “in the sanctity of contracts.” It does not want more crops to be grown, because commodity prices might go down.
I think, as with all issues, this one is going to require some compromise. What may be the best solution is to increase the dollar amount of rental payments to farmers while slowly decreasing the amount of acreage being paid for. This will allow wildlife to adjust and help offset the loss of commodity revenue for farmers in the short term. In addition, the other part of this solution is for Congress to look into other ways to control the skyrocketing price of food.
