SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY

LENGTH: 1608 words

COMMITTEE: SENATE AGRICULTURE,NUTRITION & FORESTRY

HEADLINE: 2002 FARM BILL

TESTIMONY-BY: DR. MARK SHAFFER, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT

AFFILIATION: DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE

BODY:
JULY 31, 2001

STATEMENT BY DR. MARK SHAFFER SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE

BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION AND FORESTRY

REGARDING

RESOURCE CONSERVATION ON WORKING AGRICULTURAL LANDS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to be here today and provide our perspectives, as wildlife conservationists, on the importance of environmental stewardship on working agricultural lands. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Mark Shaffer, and I am Senior Vice President for Programs at Defenders of Wildlife. Defenders of Wildlife is a national, not-for-profit conservation organization with more than 476,000 members and supporters dedicated to the protection of all our native wild animals and plants in their natural communities. Mr. Chairman, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lists over 1200 native species as either threatened or endangered in the United States. The network of state Natural Heritage programs lists another 5,000 species as imperiled. Eighty-five percent of these species are of conservation concern, at least in part, because of the loss, alteration, or degradation of their habitats. Agriculture is the single leading cause of that habitat loss, affecting 38% of listed species. This should come as no surprise, given that roughly 50% of our nation's land base is in some form of private crop or livestock. By the same token, roughly 60% of the populations of threatened and endangered and imperiled species are found on private lands, most of which are in agricultural production. Thus, any efforts to fully conserve our native wildlife will require programs that can help farmers and ranchers to provide sound resource stewardship on their lands. But resource stewardship on agricultural lands is the product of two types of decisions farmers and ranchers must make: first, deciding which lands to utilize, and second, deciding what management practices to apply to those lands that remain in production. Both types of decisions are important for maintaining our native plant and animal wildlife heritage. Both types of decisions can also affect the sustainability of farms and the farm economy.

The Conservation Title of the Farm Bill has increasingly provided the means to reach out to agricultural producers operating small and medium sized enterprises and to assist them in restoring and maintaining important environmental values on their lands. Programs such as CRP, WRP, EQIP, CREP, and WHIP have for the most part worked well, although some improvements are in order. We have submitted with this testimony a short paper that provides our recommendations for the next Conservation Title. However, the main limitation of the existing programs are that the voluntary farmer demand to participate has not been met by the funding available to date. Mr. Chairman, you and your committee have the chance to address that lingering need in this reauthorization cycle.

Defenders is a strong proponent of natural resource conservation on private agricultural lands and supports the goals of current conservation programs. Primarily since 1980, USDA conservation programs have made substantial contributions to reducing soil erosion, improving water quality, and benefitting wildlife populations. For example, through the end of FY 2000, more than 80,000 contracts had been implemented through EQIP, providing resource conservation measures on more than 34 million acres of agricultural lands in production. Nearly 935,000 acres has been enrolled in the WRP, most of it in 30-year or permanent easements. CRP and conservation compliance have made significant contributions to reducing soil erosion by nearly 40%. The WHIP program has funded about 8,400 projects on more than 1.4 million acres, including projects that have targeted imperiled species and their habitats such as the Atlantic Salmon and the Karner Blue Butterfly. All of these accomplishments are significant and are to be commended.

Despite the many accomplishments of these conservation efforts, there are challenges that need to be addressed in the Conservation Title of the next Farm Bill. One major limitation has been that producers who practice sound resource stewardship on a day-to-day basis are mostly ineligible to participate in current programs. Conservation programs are designed to assist producers who have, by past practices, contributed to environmental costs that the public must bare, and not to support those who have employed conservation practices over the long- term. Another problem is that increasing producer demand to participate has not been matched by an adequate level of funding, technical assistance, and agro-environmental research. Furthermore, meaningful conservation compliance must be restored and strengthened if gains in natural resource conservation and environmental quality are going to be maintained.

Beyond these needed improvements in the Conservation title, there is an additional need for more programs aimed at assisting the integration of conservation practices on working agricultural lands. Currently, most of the funding for existing Farm Bill conservation programs goes to permanent or short-term land retirement, the so-called set-aside programs. These land retirement programs are necessary and have demonstrated substantial environmental and economic benefits. They are aimed at encouraging farmers to make the right decision about which lands to crop or graze. CRP aims to encourage farmers not to cultivate highly erodible lands. WRP aims to encourage farmers not to drain and cultivate wetlands. These are good programs that implement wise conservation policy.

But the fact is, most agricultural land has, and will continue to remain in agricultural production. Recently, however, fewer resources have been allocated to programs to encourage producers to practice environmentally sound management on working agricultural lands. Producer's management choices have profound consequences for our nation's wildlife, especially as they affect aquatic organisms through water quality in our streams, rivers, and coastal waters. For example, according to a Nature Conservancy report, aquatic organisms show among the highest levels of jeopardy of any of our native wildlife groups. A much larger percentage of our native fish, amphibians and other aquatic organisms are threatened, endangered or imperiled than of our birds, mammals, or reptiles. The Dead Zone in the Gulf of Mexico is a non-trivial consequence of our agricultural production methods. Agricultural practices are a leading cause of this problem, principally through the run-off of fertilizers, pesticides, and sediment.

Defenders believes there is an urgent need, not just to improve, strengthen and expand the existing programs in the Conservation Title, but to establish major new initiatives aimed at encouraging environmentally sound agricultural management practices on the working lands that will continue to comprise the bulk of our farms and ranches. In particular, Mr. Chairman, we have been impressed by the vision and intent of the Conservation Security Act that you and your co-sponsors introduced earlier this session. We see the CSA as a complement to existing programs that has the potential to fill the geographical gaps in resource conservation efforts created by current program requirements. The CSA would reward producers who voluntarily practice, on a day-to- day basis, minimum levels of resource stewardship, but who are not eligible for existing programs. We have previously submitted comments on that legislation, and in general we support the concept of adding such a package of stewardship incentives to the next Farm bill as a much needed complement to what will hopefully be a bigger and stronger Conservation Title.

Mr. Chairman, Defenders recognizes that expanding the existing Conservation Title and adding a new stewardship program such as the CSA will require a significant investment. However, it is clear to us that both approaches are necessary if we hope to maintain our nations' wildlife heritage and many other environmental values on which we all depend. We recognize that there is a need to provide periodic, and reasonable levels of support to small and medium-sized agricultural producers to counter unique and adverse physical and economic circumstances that affect their livelihoods and their ability to remain on the land. That being said, we encourage you and this committee to look for additional resources in those programs that hinder the operation of the market, that do not benefit the core strength of American agriculture-the family farmer, and that, by their nature fuel the continued over-production of agricultural commodities that benefit a few at a great cost to the many.

In summary, we believe that expanding the existing Conservation Title to a broader array of agricultural interests such as ranchers and fruit and vegetable producers, increasing funding for existing programs to meet current levels of producer demand, and adding a major new stewardship program such as the CSA, will serve both America's family farmers and America's environment, to the benefit of us all. We believe that these objectives can be accomplished through cooperative and constructive efforts by the agricultural, conservation, environmental and sportsman communities, all of whom recognize the importance of resource stewardship.

Thank you for this opportunity to address the committee today. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you or the other members of the committee may have.



LOAD-DATE: August 2, 2001