conservation provisions of the 2007 farm bill ......“usda should quickly identify ’low-hanging...

CONSERVATION PROVISIONS OF THE 2007 FARM BILL:

OPPORTUNITIES TO INFORM DEBATE

FROM THE BLUE RIBBON PANEL CONDUCTING AN

EXTERNAL REVIEW OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

A Soil and Water Conservation Society Project

®

®

C

AP

ECONSERVATION EFFECTSASSESSMENT PROJECT

CONSERVATION PROVISIONS OF THE 2007 FARM BILL: OPPORTUNITIES TO

INFORM DEBATE

FROM THE BLUE RIBBON PANEL CONDUCTING AN

EXTERNAL REVIEW OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

CONSERVATION EFFECTSASSESSMENT PROJECT

AAbboouutt SSWWCCSS

The Soil and Water Conservation Society (SWCS) is a nonprofit scientific and educationalorganization that serves as an advocate for natural resource professionals and for science-based conservation policy. Our mission is to foster the science and art of soil, water, andenvironmental management on working land—the land used to produce food, fiber, andother services that improve the quality of life people experience in rural and urbancommunities. We work to discover, develop, implement, and constantly improve waysto use land that sustains its productive capacity and enhances the environment at thesame time.

SWCS has about 7,000 members around the world. They include researchers, adminis-trators, planners, policymakers, teachers, students, farmers, and ranchers. Nearlyevery academic discipline and many different conservation institutions are representedwithin the membership.

Member benefits include the widely respected Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,representation in policy circles, opportunities for leadership and networking, and dis-counts on books and conference registrations.

SWCS chapters throughout the United States, Canada, and the Caribbean Basin con-duct a variety of activities at local, state, and provincial levels and on university cam-puses. These 75 chapters represent the grassroots element of the organization. Eachchapter elects its own officers, organizes conservation forums, and formulates localrecommendations on conservation and environmental issues.

SSooiill aanndd WWaatteerr CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn SSoocciieettyy

994455 SSoouutthhwweesstt AAnnkkeennyy RRooaadd,, AAnnkkeennyy,, IIoowwaa 5500002233

PP:: ((551155)) 228899--22333311 •• FF:: ((551155))228899--11222277 •• wwwwww..sswwccss..oorrgg

A Soil and Water Conservation Society Project

SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION SOCIETY2

TTaabbllee ooff CCoonntteennttss

EEXXTTEENNDD TTHHEE VVAALLUUEE AANNDD MMEEAANNIINNGG OOFF CCEEAAPP RREESSUULLTTSS 44

CCoollllaabboorraattiioonn

RReeggiioonnaall vveerrssuuss NNaattiioonnaall RReeppoorrttiinngg

GGrroouunndd--ttrruutthhiinngg

SSTTAATTEE OOFF TTHHEE NNAATTIIOONN’’SS CCOONNSSEERRVVAATTIIOONN EEFFFFOORRTT OONN WWOORRKKIINNGG LLAANNDD 55--66

CCEEAAPP CCrrooppllaanndd--CCRRPP BBaasseelliinnee EEssttiimmaattee

CCEEAAPP SSuurrvveeyy ooff LLaanndd UUsseerrss

NNuuttss aanndd BBoollttss ooff PPrrooggrraamm IImmpplleemmeennttaattiioonn

CCHHAALLLLEENNGGEESS AANNDD UUNNFFIINNIISSHHEEDD BBUUSSIINNEESSSS 66

AANNAALLYYSSIISS OOFF AALLTTEERRNNAATTIIVVEESS:: WWHHEERREE CCOOUULLDD WWEE GGOO FFRROOMM HHEERREE??

CCEEAAPP NNaattiioonnaall AAsssseessssmmeenntt

CCEEAAPP WWaatteerrsshheedd SSttuuddiieess

CCOONNCCEERRNNSS 88--99

FFeeaassiibbiilliittyy,, RReeaalliissttiicc EExxppeeccttaattiioonnss,, aanndd PPrriioorriittiieess

GGrraazziinngg llaanndd:: AAnn IImmppoorrttaanntt IInnffoorrmmaattiioonn GGaapp

AA MMoorree CCoommpprreehheennssiivvee WWiillddlliiffee AAsssseessssmmeenntt iiss NNeeeeddeedd

AAnn IInn--ddeepptthh AAsssseessssmmeenntt ooff tthhee TTeecchhnniiccaall SSeerrvviicceess IInnffrraassttrruuccttuurree iiss NNeeeeddeedd

NNEEXXTT SSTTEEPPSS 1100

CEAP: INFORM DEBATE OF THE 2007 FARM BILL 3


The CEAP Blue Ribbon Panel’s report of preliminaryfindings, released in March 2005, included the follow-ing key findings:

“The panel believes the need to supply policymakers,program managers, and the conservation communitywith the information they need to manage and/or pro-pose reforms to conservation programs is greater thanever. Demands to ensure that conservation funding isused effectively have intensified given the 80 percentincrease in funding provided by the 2002 farm bill. Atthe same time, coming federal fiscal year budgets areexpected to be tight. Competition for federal fundsbetween conservation and other purposes, and amongconservation programs themselves, will be intense.Thepanel hopes a rigorous debate—if based on solid, sci-ence-based information—can result in a stronger, moreeffective, and more efficient conservation effort.”

“The panel expects conservation to be central to the2007 farm bill debate. Important decisions regardingconservation funding, program reform, and prioritieswill be made. Policymakers, program managers, andthe conservation community will need credible, sci-ence-based information to make those decisions.”

Those findings led to this recommendation:“In the short term,USDA should redirect CEAP resources to produce assessmentsthat will inform the 2007 farm bill conservation title debate.”

The panel’s report went on to recommend:

“USDA should quickly identify ’low-hanging fruit’—opportunities to use the CEAP framework to informthe 2007 farm bill debate. U.S. Department ofAgriculture (USDA) should also draw on datasets andassessment capabilities not formally considered part ofCEAP, but that are underway both inside and outsideof the Department. The panel concluded there arelikely many examples of low-hanging fruit in theCEAP national assessment, watershed studies, andrelated efforts. The panel recommends a concertedeffort to identify and take advantage of as many ofthose opportunities as possible.”

USDA subsequently requested the panel to help develop sucha list of low-hanging fruit. Panel members first were asked thisquestion:“What three to five questions would you really likeanswers to before the debate of the 2007 farm bill conserva-tion provisions starts in earnest?” Panel members were not toworry about the feasibility of answering their questions orwhether those questions were within the scope of CEAP.

They were asked simply to think about what informationwould be most useful to them.

Panel members’“wish lists”were then run through two screensto catch those ideas that could be implemented within 18months and would provide policymakers, program managers,and members of the conservation community with the mostuseful information to inform the 2007 farm bill debate.Thisscreening step was largely accomplished through a dialogueinvolving panel members, CEAP staff members from NaturalResources Conservation Service (NRCS) and AgriculturalResearch Service (ARS), and other federal agency staff liaisonsduring the panel’s May 4-5,2005 meeting in Washington,D.C.This report attempts to capture the results of that dialogue andthe panel’s deliberations in executive session.

The panel’s scope of inquiry was defined by the followingCEAP-related activities:

1. CEAP national assessment activitiesa. Cropland and Conservation Reserve Program(CRP) componentb.Wildlife and wetlands component

2. CEAP watershed studies3.Agency performance reporting systems

Other assessment activities were briefly discussed during thepanel’s meeting, but time and USDA’s charge to the paneldid not allow for in-depth exploration of those activities.

EEXXTTEENNDD TTHHEE VVAALLUUEE AANNDD MMEEAANNIINNGG OOFF CCEEAAPP RREESSUULLTTSS

The list of questions offered by panel members to helpinform the 2007 farm bill debate was long. Many questionswere well beyond the scope of CEAP. In the course of theirdeliberations, panel members repeatedly returned to threeideas they thought could help expand the potential forCEAP to inform the 2007 farm bill: collaboration, regionalversus national reporting, and ground-truthing.

CCoollllaabboorraattiioonn

CEAP’s potential to inform the 2007 farm bill debate willincrease significantly by bringing to bear the related datasets andassessment efforts of others—federal agencies, state agencies,andnongovernmental organizations.Those datasets and assessmentefforts could provide context for interpretation of CEAP resultsand create a multiplier effect, expanding the reach and meaningof CEAP results.The kind of collaborative approach envisionedby the Resource Conservation Act (RCA) appraisal process, asdescribed to the panel, should be undertaken to expand theopportunities to inform the 2007 farm bill debate.


RReeggiioonnaall vveerrssuuss NNaattiioonnaall RReeppoorrttiinngg

Regional-level assessments rather than national-level assess-ments and reporting of results represented another oppor-tunity identified by panel members. Panel membersexpressed concern that the demands of national-levelreporting planned for the cropland-CRP assessment mightovershadow opportunities to produce more focused andcomprehensive regional-level assessments. Moreover,regional-level assessments would likely provide a more spe-cific context for environmental problems and more mean-ingful interpretations of CEAP results that could inform the2007 farm bill debate.

GGrroouunndd--ttrruutthhiinngg

Panel members also repeatedly stressed the value of buttress-ing the results of model simulations and estimates of effectwith reference to “real-world” data. Marshalling evidencefrom efforts to monitor the effects of conservation practicesand programs at small watershed or other landscape scalesare essential to put simulated results into a real-world con-text and verify modeled results. CEAP watershed studiesshould play a central role in this ground-truthing effort. Inaddition, differences between simulated effects and theresults of ongoing monitoring programs must be explainedor serious questions will be raised about CEAP estimates.Finally, targeted, on-the-ground assessments of key issues,such as CRP cover quality, activities encompassed by andresults anticipated from financial assistance for broadlydefined management-intensive practices, or the success ofwetland restoration, would substantially enhance the valueof CEAP outputs.

SSTTAATTEE OOFF TTHHEE NNAATTIIOONN’’SS CCOONNSSEERRVVAATTIIOONN EEFFFFOORRTTOONN WWOORRKKIINNGG LLAANNDD

Clearly describing and documenting the current “state ofconservation” on working land—the privately-owned landcomprising working farms, ranches, and forests—would bea major contribution to informing the 2007 farm billdebate. Understanding the “conservation baseline” wouldhelp inform discussions about where the gaps in conserva-tion effort are and what steps could be taken to fill thosegaps.That baseline would provide a starting point for iden-tifying opportunities and evaluating proposals to changepolicy, programs, and/or funding levels. In the words of onepanel member,“If you don’t know where you are, it is hardto decide where you need to go.”

Panel members identified three opportunities to construct acomprehensive conservation baseline with CEAP results:the cropland-CRP baseline estimate of effects; the CEAPsurvey of land users at NRI points; nuts and bolts of pro-gram implementation.

Each of these opportunities is described in more detail below.

CCEEAAPP CCrrooppllaanndd--CCRRPP BBaasseelliinnee EEssttiimmaattee

USDA staff members explained to panel members that revisedCEAP plans include simulating the environmental effects of a“baseline”conservation effort using the conservation practicesfound to be in place on cropland during the 2003 and 2004CEAP survey of 13,000 cropped sample points and 4,000CRP sample points. Such a baseline will produce a valuableaggregate-level estimate of the current state of conservationon cropland by describing the magnitude and geographic dis-tribution of effects at national and/or large regional scales.Thisbaseline scenario will help describe where we are today andprovide a basis for simulating where we might want to go inthe future. Panel members applaud USDA for adjusting itsplans to produce this baseline scenario.

CCEEAAPP SSuurrvveeyy ooff LLaanndd UUsseerrss

Data from the CEAP survey of land users also should be minedfor useful information regarding the current state of conserva-tion effort.Panel members have not received an in-depth brief-ing on the survey questions or results, but available informationsuggests the data could be analyzed for indications of (a) thelevel of participation in USDA or other public conservationprograms, (b) what share of the conservation effort is supportedby USDA technical and financial assistance programs, and (c)the distribution, variability, and range of conservation practicesand systems applied, i.e., the level of conservation effort on


farms in the survey.There likely are other important opportu-nities to mine the CEAP survey data. USDA officials and theirpartners should rigorously explore those opportunities in theirattempt to describe the current state of conservation on crop-land. Such analyses of CEAP survey data could be furtherenriched by parallel analyses of the USDA Economic ResearchService’s Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS)dataset—focusing especially on socioeconomic elements of thestate of our current conservation effort.

NNuuttss aanndd BBoollttss ooff PPrrooggrraamm IImmpplleemmeennttaattiioonn

Are we solving or preventing problems? Policymakers, pro-gram managers, and members of the conservation commu-nity generally will want this question—more than anyother—answered as the 2007 farm bill debate unfolds andproposals are offered to reform conservation policies andprograms. But the question can only be answered withbasic, nuts-and-bolts information about program imple-mentation—what practices have been funded; where havethey been applied; how much have they cost; and what arethe primary environmental effects of funded practices?

Panel members were encouraged by the briefings theyreceived about the extent of basic information being col-lected and plans to make that information widely available.They recommended using those basic data to analyze thecontributions specific programs are making to solve prob-lems on the nation’s working land. Example analyses includ-ed the following:

1. Compare the kind and location of practices fundedbefore 2002 to the kind and location of practices fundedafter 2002 to explore the effect the 2002 conservationtitle had on conservation activity in the United States.

2. Compare the geographic distribution of practices fund-ed to the geographic distribution of known problems—impaired watersheds, air quality nonattainment areas,critical or threatened habitats, and others—to explorehow well funded practices line up with problems.

3. Explore the priorities implicit in conservation pro-grams based on the practices funded and the primaryenvironmental effects of funded practices.

Panel members believe many more such questions could beanswered by creatively using the basic, nuts-and-bolts data onprogram implementation readily available from agency report-ing systems. Updating the data and assessments in the 2000report analyzing the effect of conservation programs on fish andwildlife habitat is another important opportunity to documentthe current conservation baseline effort on working land.

CCHHAALLLLEENNGGEESS AANNDD UUNNFFIINNIISSHHEEDD BBUUSSIINNEESSSS

The next major contribution to informing debate that panelmembers recommend, is an effort to define the nation’s unfin-ished conservation business—the environmental problems andconservation opportunities that are not being addressed withthe current level of conservation effort. Such informationwould contribute significantly to the farm bill debate by per-mitting a comparison of the current level of effort to the extent,magnitude, and geographic distribution of unmet challenges.This information is critical to any discussion about what levelof conservation effort should be sought to address the unfin-ished business. Panel members encourage the CEAP effort tomine all data being gathered to identify the extent, magnitude,and geographic distribution of unmet challenges. Three suchopportunities are the following:

1.“Pre-CEAP” vulnerability and risk assessments shouldbe assembled and updated where needed and feasibleto create aggregate-level assessments of potential prob-lems and opportunities. Vulnerability assessmentsshould be compared to the “CEAP baseline” estimateto make gross estimations of the extent to which vul-nerability and risks are being addressed through thecurrent conservation effort.

2. NRI and related inventory data should be analyzed toidentify shifts in land use and/or agricultural produc-tion activities that would indicate shifts in the loca-tion, extent, or magnitude of potential problems andopportunities.The “CEAP baseline” estimate could beused to make gross estimations of the extent to whichsuch shifts, if any, are being addressed through the cur-rent conservation effort.

3. The data being gathered in the wildlife and wetlandscomponents of the CEAP national assessment, whileless comprehensive and statistically based than thecropland-CRP component, should also be exploredfor information about unmet challenges.

The benefits of collaboration in defining unfinished businessare substantial, perhaps more so than in any other area. Thevalue of the CEAP results could be multiplied through refer-ence to related datasets and assessment activities. Panel mem-bers strongly recommend that USDA ask its federal, state, andnongovernmental partners to help assemble related data andparticipate in the analysis of unmet needs.These data sets mightinclude U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality(NAWQA) data; Clean Water Act Section 319 program mon-itoring data and impaired waters lists; stream, wetland, andwildlife habitat assessment data; and other information neededto construct a comprehensive picture of conservation needsand opportunities on working land.


AANNAALLYYSSIISS OOFF AALLTTEERRNNAATTIIVVEESS:: WWHHEERREE CCOOUULLDD WWEE GGOOFFRROOMM HHEERREE??

The final contribution CEAP should make to informing the2007 farm bill debate, according to the panel, is to provide theanalytical framework for evaluating alternative options foraddressing unmet challenges and unfinished business.

CCEEAAPP NNaattiioonnaall AAsssseessssmmeenntt

The CEAP Cropland-CRP analytical framework should beused to simulate—at the aggregate level—the effect of alter-natives on the CEAP 2003-2004 baseline. This analyticalframework is amenable to large and diverse simulations.Thefeasible simulations are undoubtedly fewer, given staff andbudget constraints, but panel members do not have the infor-mation needed about those constraints to make recommen-dations on which simulations might be most feasible. Panelmembers do recommend, however, that USDA focus its sim-ulations on two related questions: (1) What could be accom-plished with a different level of conservation effort, and (2)what could be accomplished by improving the way we dothings? Such simulations could include:

1.What would happen to environmental quality if the backlogof applicants for conservation programs were eliminated?

2. What would the environmental effect be of fundingdifferent kinds and combinations of practices?

3. What would the environmental effect be if the geo-graphic distribution of funded practices were changed?

4.What would be the effect on fish and wildlife habitatof changing the geographic distribution of CRP acresand/or the kind and quality of vegetative cover onCRP acres?

CCEEAAPP WWaatteerrsshheedd SSttuuddiieess

Results to date from CEAP watershed studies—particular-ly the long-term ARS benchmark watershed studies—should be analyzed for lessons learned.Time has not allowedpanel members to review individual watershed study plans.The list of potential lessons learned is likely larger and morevaried than those panel members might identify. Panelmembers do, however, recommend that USDA reviewwatershed studies to determine what is known about:

1. Best options for targeting conservation programs toenhance effectiveness while recognizing concerns forequity in access to public programs?

2. Critical conservation concerns that may not be ade-quately addressed currently.For example,discussion dur-ing the panel’s meeting highlighted the profound effectof channel instability, bank erosion, and in-streamprocesses on water quality and aquatic habitat outcomes.

3.What is known about the effectiveness of alternative con-servation practices and systems in achieving particularenvironmental objectives; which practices are the best?


CCOONNCCEERRNNSS

Panel members, at their May meeting, identified importantopportunities to use CEAP to inform the 2007 farm billdebate. Taking advantage of those opportunities wouldresult in a more informed debate and, panel members hope,a stronger conservation effort on working land in theUnited States. Panel members, however, also identified fourongoing areas of concern, based on the CEAP informationthey received at that meeting.

FFeeaassiibbiilliittyy,, RReeaalliissttiicc EExxppeeccttaattiioonnss,, aanndd PPrriioorriittiieess

Panel members are aware of the need to set realistic expec-tations for using CEAP to inform the 2007 farm bill debate.They also are aware of their own limited ability to shapethose expectations. Members have only cursory informa-tion about the staff and resource constraints USDA faces;the costs of conducting particular data collection, simula-tion, or assessment efforts; and most importantly, the trade-offs that could be required to redirect additional resourcesto support CEAP and related assessments.

Panel members also are aware that there are competing objec-tives for CEAP among legitimate interests both inside andoutside of USDA. In the long term, accountability and strate-gic resource management objectives can and should be com-patible and mutually supporting components of an adaptivemanagement information system.But in the short-term,usingCEAP to meet demands for improved annual performancereporting may compete with using CEAP for strategicresource management assessment, given limited financial andstaff resources. In the short-term,panel members strongly urgeUSDA to focus CEAP staff and resources on efforts to informthe 2007 farm bill debate and, subsequently, on using thecapabilities of CEAP as a strategic resource managementassessment tool. Panel members applaud USDA officials forthe decisions they have already made in this regard, as report-ed during the May 2005 meeting.

Panel members tried to focus most of their recommendationsfor using CEAP to inform the 2007 farm bill debate in areaswhere information is most critically needed and is most feasi-ble to produce,given staff and resource constraints.Panel mem-bers are most confident, based on the information at hand, thatdocumenting the “state of the Nation’s conservation effort” isfeasible with existing staff and resources.The primary datasetsrequired—CEAP survey and the nuts and bolts of programimplementation—are either available or planned for, andCEAP staff is committed to producing the “CEAP baseline”simulation and an updated assessment of program effects onwildlife habitat in early 2006.

Panel members also are confident that many potential part-ners are available to help analyze survey and program imple-mentation data and thus help determine the state of thenation’s conservation effort. Panel members strongly recom-mend that USDA undertake a coordinated, collaborativeeffort—similar to the RCA appraisals undertaken in thepast—to take full advantage of its partners’ information andassessment capabilities. Providing policymakers, programmanagers, and members of the conservation community witha comprehensive picture of the state of the nation’s conserva-tion effort appears to be within reach and would make amajor contribution to an informed and constructive debateover the conservation provisions of the 2007 farm bill.

Panel members also are confident that the CEAP cropland-CRP national assessment analytical framework could beused in meaningful ways to evaluate alternatives forstrengthening the conservation effort. Panel members havesuggested a number of ways to use that analytical frame-work to pose important “what if ” questions. USDA shouldtake full advantage of this analytical framework to help pol-icymakers, program managers, and members of the conser-vation community understand the implications of alterna-tives for the reach and impact of the USDA component ofthe nation’s conservation effort on working land.

Just as collaboration with partners is essential for complet-ing the analysis of the state of the nation’s conservationefforts and identifying unmet needs, the feasibility of com-pleting other analyses depends largely on the extent towhich effective collaborations with multiple partners insideand outside of USDA can be developed.Again, panel mem-bers strongly urge USDA and its partners to develop a coor-dinated strategy that takes advantage of all opportunities forcollaboration to expand the information base available toinform the 2007 farm bill debate.

Finally, panel members are aware that the assessment andevaluation capabilities represented by CEAP are as well, orbetter suited to informing implementation strategies as theyare for informing the farm bill debate. Lessons learned fromCEAP watershed studies, the documentation of the sciencebase for quantifying the environmental effects of conserva-tion practices, and other CEAP activities could providevaluable insight for agency officials who must develop newprogram rules and policy guidance when the farm billbecomes law. Panel members urge USDA to start thinkingnow about the opportunities to use CEAP as a strategicresource management tool to guide implementation of theconservation provisions of the 2007 farm bill.


GGrraazziinngg LLaanndd:: AAnn IImmppoorrttaanntt IInnffoorrmmaattiioonn GGaapp

CEAP national assessment activities will produce usefulinformation about the environmental effects of conserva-tion on cropland and the habitat benefits derived from con-servation programs applied to additional land uses. Therewill be much less information available from CEAP activi-ties to inform debate about the nation’s conservation efforton grazing land. Given the extent and importance of graz-ing land in the United States, this limitation will pose a seri-ous information gap for policymakers, program managersand members of the conservation community generally.

AA MMoorree CCoommpprreehheennssiivvee WWiillddlliiffee AAsssseessssmmeenntt iiss NNeeeeddeedd

CRP will be the focus of most habitat assessment activitiesconducted in time to inform the 2007 farm bill debate.Thisis understandable, given that CRP already has been heavilystudied. Panel members recommend, however, that USDArevisit its plans for wildlife and wetlands assessments to pro-duce a more comprehensive and program-neutral analysis ofthe current conservation effort, unmet needs, and alterna-tives. CRP clearly provides important opportunities toenhance wildlife habitat, but the contribution of other con-servation programs must receive comparable attention.

Panel members also are concerned that the focus of thewildlife and wetlands assessments appears to be heavilyweighted toward terrestrial wildlife habitat.Again, this reflectsthe focus of most of the technical literature available toinform the assessments. It seems apparent, however, thatefforts to address water quality and/or water conservationshould have significant benefits for aquatic habitat and aquat-ic ecosystems. More attention should be paid to the aquatichabitat benefits of conservation programs in the CEAPwildlife and wetlands assessment activities. In short, panelmembers are concerned that the CEAP wildlife and wetlandsassessments could suffer from the limitations of “lookingunder the lamp post.”

AAnn IInn--ddeepptthh AAsssseessssmmeenntt ooff tthhee TTeecchhnniiccaall SSeerrvviicceess IInnffrraassttrruuccttuurree iiss NNeeeeddeedd

Panel members repeatedly discussed the status of the tech-nical services infrastructure—research, education, and tech-nical assistance—during their deliberations over key ques-tions that must be answered to inform the 2007 farm billdebate. Panel members are acutely aware of the importanceof this infrastructure as the foundation of the nation’s con-servation effort on working land.An in-depth assessment ofthe strengths and weaknesses of the current technical serv-ices infrastructure should be a major component of the

analysis of the state of the nation’s conservation effort onworking land.

Panel members realize such an in-depth assessment is large-ly outside the scope of CEAP and outside the scope of thepanel’s charge. But if CEAP simulations consider the impli-cations of program implementation at higher levels of effortor through more strategic implementation, they will beassuming that the technical services needed to secure thosehigher levels of performance are available. Clearly, thoseassumptions warrant additional scrutiny. Moreover, panelmembers believe technical assistance and advice are often amore cost-effective means to enhance environmental bene-fits from conservation on working land than financial assis-tance, particularly when directed at implementation ofmanagement-intensive, annual conservation systems.Alternatives for strengthening the technical services infra-structure should be considered as an integral part of explor-ing options to strengthen the nation’s conservation effort onworking land.


NNEEXXTT SSTTEEPPSS

The panel recommended, in its report of preliminary find-ings referred to earlier, that USDA make short-term adjust-ments in CEAP to help inform the 2007 farm bill debate.The panel applauds USDA and its partners for the stepsalready taken to ensure CEAP and related efforts will helpinform a constructive debate on the conservation provisionsof the 2007 farm bill.The panel hopes the ideas and recom-mendations presented in this report will prompt moreaction to take advantage of additional opportunities to builda solid, science-based, credible, and shared base of informa-tion as the foundation for that debate.

But the panel also raised serious concerns about long-termplans for CEAP. The panel’s report of preliminary findingsalso stated, “USDA must also change its long-term goal forCEAP to ensure its larger purpose will be met.The currentlong-term goal, as presented to the panel, is a system capableof producing national-level estimates of all environmentalbenefits produced by each individual conservation programin every year.The panel thinks a better long-term goal is asystem capable of producing rigorous assessments of optionsfor implementing conservation programs in the future.CEAP, in other words, should be built to answer the question‘What should we do next year?’ rather than ‘What did we dolast year?’ The panel thinks the current plan to spend mostCEAP resources building a system to quantify annual, pro-gram-by-program performance will be a mistake….”Dedicating CEAP resources largely to quantify annual pro-gram-by-program performance may address short-term, tac-tical, accountability issues, but it will not provide the founda-tion for the necessary strategic analysis needed to guide con-servation programs based on adaptive management.

The panel now intends to take up its last task—helping toshape a blueprint for CEAP over the long term. Informingthe 2007 farm bill is important and CEAP must make animportant contribution to the effort. But CEAP’s mostimportant contribution will be to inform strategic resourcemanagement in the long-term.The panel spent a great dealof time discussing how CEAP could play that role.The util-ity of CEAP will be determined by how the data and infor-mation collected will be used in implementing current con-servation programs and to develop recommendations forthe design and implementation of future programs. Its nextand final report, expected in fall 2005, will build on thistheme and summarize the panel’s ideas and recommenda-tions for making the most of CEAP in the long term.

C

AP

E

This report is part of a larger effort—supported by a cooperative agreement with theU.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Research Service—to assist with thedesign and implementation of the Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP). TheSoil and Water Conservation Society (SWCS) facilitated an external, policy-level reviewof CEAP. We relied on input and advice from the CEAP Blue Ribbon Panel, whose mem-bers are listed below.

We are indebted to the agency liaisons and presenters who shared their time andexpertise during the panels’ meetings. The findings and conclusions, however, are solelythe responsibility of SWCS.

CEAP Blue Ribbon Panel

SSaannddrraa BBaattiiee:: Professor, Michigan State

University-Department of Agricultural

Economics.

OOttttoo DDooeerriinngg:: Professor, Purdue University-

Department of Agricultural Economics.

RRoonnaalldd HHaammmmeerrsscchhiimmddtt:: Director, Division of

Environment, Kansas Department of Health and

Environment.

KKrryyssttaa HHaarrddeenn:: Chief Executive Officer,

National Association of Conservation Districts.

JJaayy HHaarrddwwiicckk:: Farmer, National Cotton

Council.

FFeerrdd HHooeeffnneerr:: Policy Director, Sustainable

Agriculture Coalition.

CChhaarrlliiee IInnggrraamm:: Director, Legislative and

Regulatory Affairs, National Association of State

Departments of Agriculture.

JJooee MMaarrttiinn:: Director of Congressional Affairs,

American Farm Bureau Federation.

TTaammaarraa MMccCCaannnn TThhiieess:: Director for

Environmental Issues, National Cattlemen’s Beef

Association.

JJeennnniiffeerr MMoocckk:: Agriculture Conservation

Policy Analyst, International Association of Fish

and Wildlife Agencies.

PPeetteerr NNoowwaakk:: Professor, University of

Wisconsin-Madison-Department of Rural

Sociology and Department of Environmental

Studies.

RRoossss RRaacciinnee:: Executive Director, Intertribal

Agricultural Council.

TTiimm SSeeaarrcchhiinnggeerr:: Attorney, Ecosystem

Restoration Program, Environmental Defense.

JJeeffff VVoonnkk:: Director, Iowa Department of

Natural Resources and SWCS Board of

Directors Ex-Officio Liaison.

MMaarryy WWaattzziinn:: Director, Rubenstein Ecosystem

Science Laboratory, University of Vermont-

Rubenstein School of Environment and Natural

Resources.

JJeeffffrreeyy ZZiinnnn:: Specialist in Natural Resources

Policy, Congressional Research Service.

Copyright © 2005 by the Soil and Water Conservation SocietyAll rights reservedManufactured in the United States of AmericaPrinted on recycled paper

Soil and Water Conservation Society945 SW Ankeny Rd.Ankeny, IA 50021Phone: 515-289-2331 Fax: 515-289-1227 www.swcs.org

®

®

®

conservation provisions of the 2007 farm bill ......“usda should quickly identify ’low-hanging...

Documents