Comments on: Farms & Feathers http://looncommons.org/2007/06/15/farms-feathers/ A forum for current and emerging environmental and conservation issues in Minnesota. Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:20:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Tim Gieseke http://looncommons.org/2007/06/15/farms-feathers/comment-page-1/#comment-241 Tim Gieseke Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:38:20 +0000 http://looncommons.org/2007/06/15/farms-feathers/#comment-241 Fully funding the Conservation Security Program is one important change, but not the only change that is necessary for farmers to begin to manage their production and natural resources at a higher level. To achieve natural resource management outcomes, outcomes must be clearly indentified and value must be placed upon those outcomes. The Midwestern CSP study mentioned in the article also found that most CSP farmers did not understand how payments were determined and what activities were valued over others. The study also found that the process to enroll was extremely cumbersome for NRCS and the farmers. Fully funding the CSP as is would fully burden working lands conservation. The most debilitating aspect of CSP is requiring farmers to sign 5-year practice specific contracts on how they plan on achieving higher levels of conservation. A new approach, a program based upon outcomes would allow for a streamlined, transparent process and respect the dynamic business that farming is. Whether it is about production plans, production resources, conservation plans or natural resources, decisions made on these issues must be made on the farm, by the farmer and in the context that weather, markets, labor, and the myriad of other forces imposed on farming exist. Developing a conservation program that does not consider that aspect is doomed to limited success. Tim Gieseke Minnesota Project Author - Conservation Security Program Drives Resource Management; An Assessment of CSP Implementation in Five Midwestern States Fully funding the Conservation Security Program is one important change, but not the only change that is necessary for farmers to begin to manage their production and natural resources at a higher level. To achieve natural resource management outcomes, outcomes must be clearly indentified and value must be placed upon those outcomes.
The Midwestern CSP study mentioned in the article also found that most CSP farmers did not understand how payments were determined and what activities were valued over others. The study also found that the process to enroll was extremely cumbersome for NRCS and the farmers. Fully funding the CSP as is would fully burden working lands conservation.

The most debilitating aspect of CSP is requiring farmers to sign 5-year practice specific contracts on how they plan on achieving higher levels of conservation. A new approach, a program based upon outcomes would allow for a streamlined, transparent process and respect the dynamic business that farming is. Whether it is about production plans, production resources, conservation plans or natural resources, decisions made on these issues must be made on the farm, by the farmer and in the context that weather, markets, labor, and the myriad of other forces imposed on farming exist. Developing a conservation program that does not consider that aspect is doomed to limited success.

Tim Gieseke
Minnesota Project
Author – Conservation Security Program Drives Resource Management; An Assessment of CSP Implementation in Five Midwestern States

]]>