Over the last twenty-five years, farmers have had to cope with
ever-increasing numbers of government regulations. Written with the best
of intentions and to redress real problems, administered by many different
federal and state agencies, the regulations form a bewildering , complex
maze. In the farm press, tales of farmers who have been arrested for
plowing a field (under the Endangered Species Act) or fined thousands
of dollars for digging out a ditch that hd become clogged (wetlands
regulations, Cops of Engineers) are a notorious theme.
At the same time, the public, acting through the government, has the right
to protect the water it must drink. Animal wastes, fertilizers and
pesticides used on farms could have a serious negative impact on water
quality. This is not just an isolated case
of a manure storage lagoon giving way and killling fish in a stream, an
example of a point source of pollution. Recent regulations have focused
on controlling non-point source pollution, such assmall amounts of
nitrateleaching through farm fields over
a whole watershed, or the cumulative impacts of lakeside cottages' septic
tanks.
A simple, understandable process for reconciling environmental regulations
without putting farms out of business is required - a "whole" or
comprehensive farm plan. There have been many attempts at comprehensive
farm planning. In the New York City watershed, for example, officials
wanting to remove possible farm sources of water
contaminants began by trying to restrict or prohibit certain normal
farming practices. What seemed like reasonable regulations would have made
some farms unviable. In the end, teams of agency representatives had to
spend many hours to understand each far m sufficiently to be able to
identify changes that were workable. And New York City committed some 34
million dollars to pay for everything from paperwork to barnyard gutters
to additional research .
But taxpayer dollars would not be available on such a scale for state or
national efforts in today's political climate. On the other end of the
comprehensive farm planning spectrum are efforts to enable farmers to
assess the environmental impacts of their
own farms themselves and then plan improvements, if needed . The
successful Ontario Environmental Farm Plan program, for example,
identifies what are considered good, acceptable, or poor management
practices in critical areas on the farm. The farmer rate s his or her
current practices and develops an action plan to address any problem
areas. A panel of local farmers reviews the action plans and may recommend
other changes and approve or disapprove plans. Twenty-five hundred Ontario
farmers have undertaken
this comprehensive farm planning process in just two years, despite (or perhaps because of) its voluntary nature.
The Great Lakes Basin Comprehensive Farm Planning Network was formed in
January of 1995 to examine all the different comprehensive farm planning
efforts and determine what constitutes a successful program. For example,
what convinces a farmer to go throug h the planning process? What works
better, financial incentives or peer pressure? Fines or educational
programs? How can we identify those practices that make the most impact?
Who will monitor changes that are made? What needs to be done by farmers,
by ag encies, by educators? Can the environmental and farm communities
agree on minimum standards for what is required of a comprehensive farm
plan? Does participation in the planning process result in real changes on
farms? And how does one make a plan that is
flexible, yet tough enough to make a difference?
As part of the network, for example, a statewide group of farmers and
representatives of government agencies and consumer and environmental
groups was formed by the NY Sustainable Agriculture Working Group
(NYSAWG). They will be meeting this coming fall a nd winter to learn about
several comprehensive farm plan programs: Holistic Resource ManagementTM,
the Ontario Environmental Farm Plan, NYC Watershed Whole Farm Plan, and
REAP ( NY state's proposed Responsible Environmental Agriculture Plan).
Other progra ms may also be evaluated. Several farmers will try out one or
more comprehensive farm plan processes on their farms for a true test of
their effectiveness. The evaluations will be communicated to relevant
state and federal agencies and the farm community.
Other states in the Great Lakes Basin and the province of Ontario are
conducting similar efforts as part of the network. In the end, network
members hope to have more workable, practical, effective comprehensive
farm plans as the result.
The Great Lakes Basin Comprehensive Farm Planning Network is being
supported by the Great Lakes Protection Fund in order to reduce
agricultural non-point source pollution of the Great Lakes. The Minnesota
Project took the lead in putting together the netw ork and is responsible
for coordination. For more information on comprehensive farm planning,
contact these members of the network's steering committee:
Minnesota: John Lamb, The Minnesota Project, (612) 645-6159,
water007@gold.tc.umn.edu
Loni Kemp, The Minnesota Project, (507) 743-8300,
lkemp@maroon.tc.umn.edu
George Boody, Land Stewardship Project, (612) 653-0618,
boody002@gold.tc.umn.edu
Wisconsin: John Bobbe, Great Lakes Integrated Rotational Grazing Network,
(414) 825-1369
Michigan: Greg Mund, MI Assoc. of Sustainable Ag., (616) 788-3492
Ontario: Harold Rudy, Ontario Soil & Crop Improvement Assoc., (519)
767-460
2 New York: Dick Dale, NY Sustainable Ag. Working Group, (607)
898-4851, ddale@cce.cornell.edu
Pennsylvania: Tim Bowser, PA Assoc. of Sustainable Ag., (814) 349-9856
Ohio: Anusuya Rangarajan, Ohio State Univ.Dept. of Entomology, (216)
263-3686, rangarajan.1@osu.ed u
Indiana: Steve Bonney, IN Sustainable Ag. Assoc., (317) 463-9366
At-large members:
Michelle Miller, World Wildlife Fund, Madison, WI,
(608) 255-1900, mmm@igc.apc.or
Tom Guthrie, Michigan FarmBureau, (616) 62-2261
Bob Burris, USDA Natural Resource ConservationService, Toledo, OH,
(419) 245-2514