Skip to footer

What the Farm Bill means for conservation

Included in the Farm Bill signed into law Feb. 7 was a provision linking crop insurance subsidies for farmers to conservation practices that protect land and water. It was a hard fought win for both farmers and the nation's waterways and wildlife. 

|
Jacquelyn Martin/AP/File
The farm bill signed by President Barack Obama at Michigan State University, in East Lansing, Mich., on Friday, Feb. 7, 2014. The bill included hard-won provisions for conservation.
  • By Cat Lazaroff Guest blogger

On February 7, after nearly three long years, President Obama signed the 2014 Farm Bill into law.

It’s a big deal – nearly $1 trillion big – covering everything from crop insurance to food stamps to research and rural development. And while it’s hard to find anyone who likes everything about the bill, the total package has most conservation advocates celebrating, both for some notable conservation victories and for what was kept out of the legislation.

The bill “boosts conservation efforts so that our children and grandchildren will be able to enjoy places like the Mississippi River Valley and Chesapeake Bay,” President Obama said at the signing ceremony. That kind of language was echoed in press releases from groups ranging from Ducks Unlimited to the National Farmers Union to the National Wildlife Federation.

Among the biggest conservation wins in the final bill is a provision linking crop insurance subsidies for farmers to conservation practices that protect land and water. Under “conservation compliance,” farmers who receive subsidized crop insurance premiums have to agree to adopt certain practices to protect soil and keep pesticides out of freshwater supplies.

Conservation compliance is a win-win for farmers and the nation’s waterways and wildlife, but it was by no means an easy win.  A similar provision was stripped from the 1996 Farm Bill, and when the process that resulted in the current bill started almost three years ago, “conservation compliance was a fringe issue with very little chance of passage.” It was just one of many items on a very long priority list for most groups working on Farm Bill issues, and seemed likely to be traded away as a bargaining chip for other hoped-for measures.

But conservation compliance was also one of the few items that an impressive diversity of stakeholders – farmers, hunters, environmentalists – could agree on. So when these groups got together and made conservation compliance a top priority, things started looking more hopeful.

Given the jargon-laden white-noise that accompanies the Farm Bill debate, an important first step was to settle on simple language that would help reporters and decision-makers quickly understand this important issue. From the American Farmland Trust to the National Corn Growers Association to Senator John Thune (R-SD), supporters started referring to conservation compliance as kind of quid pro quo in which farmers who take advantage of taxpayer assistance pledge to adopt common sense conservation practices to protect the nation’s soil and water. With a unified coalition, Congressional champions and a compelling message, conservation compliance went from fringe to mainstream, and finally, to law.

Read more about the Farm Bill’s wins – and losses – in our round-up of the final bill’s conservation programs.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.
editor@csmonitor.com
Subscribe
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

QR Code to What the Farm Bill means for conservation
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/The-Bite/2014/0219/What-the-Farm-Bill-means-for-conservation
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe