|
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|
Now, history has caught up to the future. Looking ahead to 2007, the Conservancy is hoping to build on momentum gained for conservation in the 2002 Farm Bill. That might be difficult, given there is less money in the pot to go around this year. Some environmental groups want the government to redirect money currently given to farmers for commodity payments on rice, wheat, corn and the like. They hope to use that money to fund the conservation components of the legislation.
The Conservancy is pursuing a less confrontational approach. The reason environmental groups were able to secure such large gains for conservation spending in the past is because of our partnerships with farmers, says Stephen Frerichs, a consultant on agricultural policy to the Conservancy. “We work with a lot of farmers; we know they care about conservation, but they have to make money first. We prefer to work with the ag committees instead of going after their constituents.”
The Conservancy’s agriculture experts have drafted a list of recommendations they hope Congress will implement. The Conservancy wants the Agriculture Department to fund science-based assessments of existing programs under the Farm Bill and target conservation funding at ecologically critical areas to generate the biggest conservation gains for each dollar spent. In addition, the Conservancy hopes Congress will create incentives for farmers to more actively manage wetlands and reserve lands. Idle farmlands could offer additional conservation gains—such as wildlife habitat and cleaner air and water—if farmers actively managed the land using prescribed burns, seasonal flooding or techniques that suppress invasive weeds and pests.
“We recognize that federal funding is tight,” says the Conservancy’s Wojciechowski. “Our focus is on how can we improve the programs we presently have—how do we get them to be greener with smaller tweaks; how can we get increased funding where it is needed; and how can get more environmental conservation bang for our buck?”
To that end, the Conservancy is working with a diverse coalition of groups that range from Ducks Unlimited to the Farm Bureau, lobbying members of congressional agricultural committees with statistics, charts and numbers that show the success of existing programs.
It’s too early to know whether politicians are likely to endorse any of the Conservancy’s recommendations. Congress will begin drafting the Farm Bill this spring; for now, legislators are in a period of information gathering.
Back on the land near Smoky Valley Ranch, Maxine Nickelson is left alone with her black-and-white photos from her childhood and memories of the land: When her husband died a few years ago, she quit the farm, and of her four children, not one has chosen to go into agriculture.
“A farmer’s life is a very, very hard life,” she says. “The government should absolutely be helping the farmer with programs that help the land and help the farmers to stay there. We have to learn to take care of our environment. I don’t think we’ll ever have a Dust Bowl again because of the improved farming practices, thank goodness. But, oh, I don’t think anyone who didn’t live it can know how bad it was; it’s something you just don’t like to relive.”
<< Previous 1 2 3 4
Rebecca Clarren writes from Portland, Oregon, about agriculture and the environment. Her work appears in Salon.com, High Country News and Orion Magazine.
Nature picture credits (top to bottom, left to right): Photo © Michael Forsberg (Sandhill Cranes);
Photo © Chris Helzer/TNC (Corn field).
