SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY

LENGTH: 2342 words

COMMITTEE: HOUSE AGRICULTURE

HEADLINE: 2002 FARM BILL

TESTIMONY-BY: JEFF EISENBERG, SENIOR POLICY ADVISOR FOR AGRICULTURE

AFFILIATION: THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

BODY:
July 17, 2001

Statement of

Mr. Jeff Eisenberg Senior Policy Advisor for Agriculture for THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

Before the House Agriculture Committee United States House of Representatives

I. INTRODUCTION

The Nature Conservancy, America's largest conservation organization, appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony on the 2001 Farm Bill. The Nature Conservancy views the many important programs under the jurisdiction of this committee as part of a larger mosaic in rural America - programs that help support economic development and the conservation of the natural resources necessary for production agriculture and the welfare of Americans everywhere.

The Nature Conservancy is dedicated to preserving the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive. The Conservancy has more than 1.1 million individual members and over 1,900 corporate sponsors. We currently have programs in all 50 states and in 27 nations. To date our organization has protected more than 12 million acres in the 50 states and has helped local partner organizations preserve millions of acres abroad. The Conservancy itself owns more than 1,340 preserves - the largest private system of nature sanctuaries in the world. Our conservation work is grounded on sound science, strong partnerships with farmers and ranchers and other landowners, and on achieving lasting tangible conservation results. Currently, the Conservancy is working at approximately 150 sites around the country to implement conservation through community- based projects where we work with landowners to maintain and restore functioning landscapes and the habitat they support. Our plan is to increase this number to 500 sites within the next decade. Because much of the privately held land is used for agricultural production, we are naturally working ever more closely with crop and livestock producers. This work will only succeed if it is built on a foundation of fundamental trust with producers. The voluntary conservation programs authorized under the Farm Bill are a primary tool for meeting the mutual interests of producers and the Conservancy in achieving economically viable agriculture production that is also environmentally sustainable.

The American public appreciates the role that conservation must play in agriculture policy. A recent poll conducted by The Tarrance Group on behalf of the American Farmland Trust showed that 78% of voters approve of government income support programs for producers to correct low market prices and 88% approve of these payments in cases of drought or flood damage.

At the same time, 75% of voters believe that the payments should be tied to implementation of conservation practices. The Conservancy is advocating funding only for voluntary conservation programs in the Farm Bill. Still, we agree with the broader point made by the poll results that conservation should play an important role in agriculture policy.

Resource benefits supporting production agriculture, producer income, and the environment deserve the thoughtful support of the Committee in formulating long-term agriculture policy in the next Farm Bill. The Committee has recognized the importance of conservation in its draft concept paper by proposing to raise baseline spending on conservation by more than 75%. Congress has generally recognized the importance of conservation in agriculture policy as more than 200 members have signed letters asking that a robust conservation title be included in the Farm Bill.

We applaud the work of the Committee in supporting conservation. We ask the Committee to consider adding additional acres to the Wetland Reserve Program, and to include a grassland protection program in the mark-up of the Farm Bill. Comments on other aspects of the concept paper are also set forth below. 11. Principal Recommendations

A. Wetland Reserve Program (WRP)

WRP is one of the best examples of a program that serves conservation and production agriculture interests. Wetlands are one of the more important natural features found on private lands. They maintain the land resource base by absorbing excess water flows, they provide important filtration functions for groundwater, rivers and streams, and they provide habitat for fish and wildlife.

Because of these important benefits, the Nature Conservancy considers WRP to be the most important conservation program authorized by the Agriculture Committee. The case for expanding the program is strong. At one time, there were more than 220 million acres of wetlands in this country. This number has now been reduced to 110 million acres on private land and approximately 20 million acres on public land.

To date, the Wetland Reserve Program has restored 1 million of these acres. The demand for participation in the program has far outstripped the availability of funding by approximately a 4:1 ratio."The Committee proposed authorizing 100,000 acres annually in its draft farm bill concept paper. Average enrollment in the program during the term of the current Farm Bill has been approximately 150,000 acres annually. The Nature Conservancy and the Sportsmen's Caucus endorsed authorization of 250,000 acres annually. We urge the Committee to increase the acres authorized in the mark-up of the bill. B. Grassland Reserve Program

The Nature Conservancy has been working hand in hand with the National Cattlemen's Beef Association to create a program that protects grasslands. The Grassland Reserve Program, H.R. 1689, was introduced by Congressmen Schaffer and Thompson on May 2, 2001. The bill protects grasslands through permanent and thirty- year easements. It imposes no regulation on grazing. The principal prohibition in the bill is against breaking the soil for crops or any other purpose. The bill also allows private entities, such as ranching land trusts, to hold easements under the program.

The Nature Conservancy and the Cattlemen share a strong commitment to keeping working landscapes intact. The Conservancy understands that unless there is economically viable activity in rural America, the land could be lost to less desirable uses such as development. Our number one conservation goal in the west is to keep large grass landscapes intact. The Cattlemen want to keep their ranchers on the ground. Our interests in this matter are thus very much in alignment. Other groups that have endorsed a proposal for grass protection include Ducks Unlimited, the National Rifle Association, the Wildlife Management Institute, the International Association of State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the National Wildlife Federation, and others. Additionally, the proposal has been endorsed by the Sportsmen's Caucus.

An alarming proportion of native prairie has disappeared from this country. PreEuropean settlement coverage of grasslands in the contiguous 48 states was approximately 923 million acres, about half of the total land. Most of this grassland (883 million acres) was west of the Mississippi River and about 582 million acres of it was on land that is now privately owned. By 1997, USDA reported only 402 million acres of "rangeland" in the 22 states west of the Mississippi River, excluding federal lands.

The biotic diversity of North American grasslands is probably the most altered by human impact of any of the continent's terrestrial ecosystems. The ecological status of many existing grassland systems are heavily influenced at the local level by combinations of habitat fragmentation, undesirable habitat changes due to fire exclusion, declining range conditions due to improper grazing management, and loss of habitat values due to the spread of invasive and non-native plants. Further complications arise from demographic trends related to changes in land ownership. As a result, many species endemic to grasslands have declined substantially in the recent past.

Moreover, grassland losses continue to occur. Historically, the greatest threat to grasslands in the United States was the plow. Conversion of grass to cropland remains an important threat today largely as a result of federal policy providing perverse incentives to convert grass. Government programs such as loan deficiency payments, subsidized crop insurance and disaster relief, converting land to, or keeping land in, crops can act as powerful incentives to convert grass to cropland. This is especially true for land that is marginally suited for cropping.

A grassland protection program should provide an option for producers to sell a permanent easement to the government. Permanent easements are overwhelmingly the choice of producers who enroll in the WRP, and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program in Illinois.Ranchers in California have submitted requests for 380,000 acres of permanent easements to the California Rangeland Trust.

Producers love the land from which they earn a living and a significant number want to preserve for future generations the object of their life-long effort. The Nature Conservancy urges the Committee to respect the demonstrated wishes of a significant portion of the producer community and make a permanent easement option available under both the Grassland and Wetland Reserve Programs. Producers who oppose permanent protection are under no obligation to sell such an easement to the government. Farm Bill conservation programs are voluntary.

The Nature Conservancy understands that some members of the Committee have expressed concern about the cost of a grassland program. We believe that the cost of the grassland proposal is likely lower than indicated by the initial cost estimates issued by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). Grasslands in most states occur in relatively isolated regions with relatively lower land prices. If the reasonable assumption is made that participation in the program will track the location of grasslands throughout the country, then the overall cost estimate of the program should be significantly less than the estimates first issued by the CBO. So long as land prices in Colorado and California remain high, the cost of the program will never be as low as some would like. Still, these are only 2 of 22 states and the majority of acres enrolled in the program will come from more isolated areas with cheaper land.

More generally, we believe that money is available to pay for additional acres for WRP and for a grassland program out of the allocation made available for the Farm Bill. Once the outlays have been identified for the mandatory conservation programs, more dollars will become available relative to the amounts that were identified in the draft concept paper. Additionally, we believe the Committee could find money in the commodity title to pay for these modest proposals and still ensure that every producer in actual financial need and engaged in actual production of crops receives adequate assistance in this Farm Bill. We urge the Committee to consider exploring additional places where money can be found to pay for sufficient WRP acres, and a grassland program.

Traditionally, ranchers and the west have received relatively little financial support through the Farm Bills. While all Americans agree that producer income should be supported, there is no reason this support should not be extended to ranchers through protection of forage in a Grassland Reserve Program. The program is a close union of the economic and conservation objectives Americans want to see in farm policy. 111. Other Programs in the Draft Concept Paper

A. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)

The Nature Conservancy supports the Sportsmens' Caucus call for a 45 million acre program. Additional funding needs to be found to reach this objective. We particularly support continuous sign-up practices and CREP for their water quality benefits and the important role these programs can play in helping producers manage the resources on their farms.

We supported the proposal to include biomass acreage in CRP when it was first introduced a few years ago, and support the Committee's current proposal to increase the acreage. The Nature Conservancy believes that our nation's farmers can play an even greater role in meeting our nation's energy requirements and environmental responsibilities. Production of biomass provides both fuel and an alternative source of income for producers that can be important when conventional commodity prices are low. We are also interested in promoting carbon sequestration through voluntary conservation practices.

The Nature Conservancy seeks to increase the payment limitation applicable to CRP contracts. The Nature Conservancy views the conservation programs as tools to help abate threats to the quality of land and water habitat. The scope of the availability of the programs should be primarily driven by the resource need, not some other criteria.

We also seek adjustments to CRP language to make the program more accessible to producers on the two coasts and to extend eligibility to include land used for orchards, vineyards, and cranberry bogs. Finally, we support making CRP land available for haying and grazing subject to reasonable environmental conditions. B. The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)

The Nature Conservancy recognizes that producer groups have placed a priority on gaining a large increase in funding for EQIP because of the vital role the program can play in redressing a variety of resource issues faced by producers. We support a significant increase for the program. For the reasons stated under the CRP section, we also seek an increase of the payment limitation applicable to EQIP.

We appreciate the support the Committee has shown for agriculture conservation through the years, and this opportunity to present testimony to you. The Nature Conservancy looks forward to working with you on these important issues and would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.



LOAD-DATE: July 23, 2001