The U.S. Senate’s debate on the Farm Bill has been postponed until early September, but in the meantime staff members of the Agriculture Committee will be working on the desires of Chairman Tom Harkin to create a proposal for committee consideration. And Senator Harkin has left little doubt that he wants more attention paid to conservation than what appears in the House version of the Farm Bill. But what does that really mean?

Ohio State University economist Brent Sohngren has delved into the process of conservation issues and identified several key issues:
• National environmental groups are focusing on the appeal for more money in the conservation title.
• CRP could end up looking more like an energy program.
• EQIP and other working lands programs need more than just a combining of programs.

National environmental groups are focusing on the appeal for more money in the conservation title. Sohngren says the special interest groups which want more funding for conservation are pushing Congress to fund a backlog of projects they say landowners want, but for which there have been no cooperative funds. Groups such as Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Working Group, National Wildlife Federation and others have their priority lists of unfunded projects, but he rhetorically asks, “In the real world, is having proposals that go unfunded a bad idea?” Sohngren contends there are many projects in the world that should not be funded because they may not contribute enough payback, and instead of seeking more funding the environmental groups should focus on the process of how funding decisions are made and the performance expected. He believes money should be spent based on the outcome of the project.

CRP could end up looking more like an energy program. With much of the Conservation Reserve Program in grassland, it becomes a candidate to produce grass and similar biomass for harvest of feedstock for cellulosic ethanol plants. The soil conservation benefit of the CRP would not be jeopardized, but the biomass could be collected as it is sometimes used for grazing during periods of drought. However, Sohengren’s concerns about the concept is that the CRP is performing its duties of water quality, wildlife habitat, and other environmental issues, but there is other land that may be better suited for subsidized biomass production and the CRP would not have to be disturbed. He is an advocate for identifying land that should be conserved in the best ways, without focusing on acreage limitations and using better environmental formulas and more flexible contracts.

EQIP and other working lands programs need more than just a combining of programs. Sohengren believes the NRCS staff is too small to function and combining programs would improve efficiencies, “But simply combining programs does not address the fundamental issue raised above – whether the funds being spent are actually helping to improve the environment. If we could spend less money and have more of an impact on the environment, wouldn’t that seem like the win-win we are always seeking?” In all actuality, Sohengren wants Congress to better allocate the funds that exist, instead of seeking additional funds for conservation projects. He says rules that are written in Washington have difficulty working in rural America, but improvements could be made, such as using the CRP’s Environmental Benefits Index in the EQIP and CSP programs, and some of those latter projects could be completed with an EBI-based performance measurement.

Summary:
Sohengren says the key issue in the 2007 Farm Bill should be to increase program efficiency and improve funding allocation processes. There are questions about whether environmental goals have been reached, but changing the process could ensure that projects are successful and serve the public.