Lest we forget floods, another potential result from changing weather patterns due to climate change. Photo: US Fish & Wildlife Service

“What does it mean, in terms of our agricultural economy, if we don’t do more to curb the greenhouse gas issues we’re facing?” Cowan asked.

A good question, and members of Congress don’t ask it often enough. Farmers, and subsequently consumers, are already feeling the effects of climate change. Dr. Joe Glauber, Chief Economist of the USDA, answered the question by discussing a recent USDA report that included these key messages, paraphrased below:

• Bad news: Climate change will have an impact on agricultural productivity, but
• Good news: there are steps we can take to curb emissions and lessen the negative impacts of climate change.

The report explains that the economic effects of climate change on agriculture depend on a complex web of factors. For example, climate change can impact the livestock industry through the price of feed grains, competition for pasture land, and changing patterns of pests and diseases. How it all plays out could very well depend on how the livestock industry adapts to climate change. Farmers could build livestock shelters to protect their animals from extreme temperatures, but how will farmers protect livestock from the less predictable changes in disease distribution?

Climate change is already costing us. Continuing to use the agricultural economy as an example, consider the hefty price tag of the drought of 2012; it cost taxpayers $14.2 billion in crop insurance alone. Our pocketbooks will be feeling the cost of rising food prices throughout 2013. That is why it is even more important to take action and promote agricultural policies that encourage climate-friendly farming.

As several agricultural producers testified in the hearing, conservation practices have the potential to make farming systems more resilient to changing weather patterns.  For example, conservation tillage practices and cover crops have the potential to improve soil health so that the soil holds more water and sequesters more carbon, keeping harmful greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere and making agricultural land more productive.

 Sometimes people ask me why NWF is involved in the fight on climate change.  I work on agricultural issues, but all natural systems are connected. There is no greater threat to wildlife than climate change; it’s that simple.  A recent report by NWF shows the urgency of acting to protect wildlife against climate impacts. That is why I hope you’ll join us this Sunday at the “Forward on Climate Rally” in DC, or consider financially supporting our work.

My job is to update you on the wildlife impacts of Farm Bill developments from the past few months and give you an idea of what conservation’s future might look like, if the Farm Bill doesn’t pass by September, 21st (Please see my previous blog for a basic explanation of what the Farm Bill is and how it affects wildlife).

Recap: Senate and House Bills

On September 12, 2012, farm groups gathered in front of the Capitol to urge Congress to pass the Farm Bill now. National Wildlife Federation staff attended.

• It maintains an adequate level of funding for conservation programs;
• It contains a national Sodsaver provision to protect native grasslands;
• And it requires that farmers receiving taxpayer-funded crop insurance premium subsidies protect the public good by following a soil conservation plan on highly erodible land and refrain from draining wetlands (known as conservation compliance).

After the Senate bill passed, it was the House’s turn to pass their own version. The House Agriculture Committee moved quickly to pass H.R. 6830, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2012. Although the House version maintained a similar level of funding to conservation in comparison to the Senate bill, it lacked important protection for wildlife. The House bill’s version of Sodsaver only applied to the Prairie Pothole Region, despite efforts by Reps. Timothy Walz (D-Minn.) and Kristi Noem (R-S.D.) to extend Sodsaver nationally and protect native grasslands nationwide. The House version also lacked conservation compliance provisions in exchange for crop insurance premium subsidies. However, if brought to the House floor, members of Congress will have the chance to apply Sodsaver to the entire nation, and apply important soil and water conservation provisions, as Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) did on the Senate floor.

Unfortunately, the Farm Bill is stalled. There are only 3 days left on the Congressional calendar before the 2008 Farm Bill expires on September 30th, 2012, and the House leadership still hasn’t allowed the Farm Bill to go to the floor. Although Rep. Bruce Braley (D-IA) filed a discharge petition to force the House to a vote, it is unlikely the petition will get enough signatures before the Farm Bill expires.

What will happen if the 2008 Farm Bill expires?

The longer it takes to pass a farm bill, the worse things will be for conservation. According to the Congressional Research Service, funding for some conservation programs, including the Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP), Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), and Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) was extended beyond the Farm Bill until September 2014, by the FY2012 Agriculture Appropriations Act (P.L. 112-55); however, that appropriation contains significant cuts to all those programs.

But the Farm Bill expiration isn’t the only thing affecting conservation funding right now. In an effort to keep the government running  until March 2013, the House has passed a continuing resolution which would cap some conservation programs and cut others. If the House votes on a Farm Bill in the lame duck session after the November election, there is still another chance to restore vital conservation funding.  If Congress waits until next year to vote on the Farm Bill, the process will have to start all over again and conservation will continue to be a target for disproportionate budget cuts.

Will the agricultural world as we know it come to an end?

Old barns might still be pretty, but old farm laws are not. The Farm Bill has to keep moving forward to keep up with the times. Photo credit: flickr, cwwycoff1

So, no, the world isn’t going to end if the Farm Bill doesn’t pass by September 30th. That being said, I am hugely disappointed in this turn of events. I would like to believe that our elected officials can work together and get things done. A Farm Bill that pleases everyone may not exist. But I believe that with hard, bipartisan work, Congress can pass a Farm Bill we can stand behind. There is still time left, and a bill is so close. Yet so far.

What can you do to make sure mayhem doesn’t ensue and wildlife is protected?

Follow the link to ask your representative to extend the important wildlife protection provisions from the Senate version to the House version of the Bill, whenever it comes to the floor.

UPDATE: September 20th: House Speaker John Boehner announced that the Farm Bill will not go to the House floor until after November elections.  

Last week, NWF and over 100 other conservation organizations won a victory, despite many people telling us for months that it was not possible.  Senator Saxby Chambliss’s (R-GA) amendment to the Farm Bill connecting conservation compliance to crop insurance passed 52-47, in spite of strong opposition from organizations like the American Farm Bureau and the Senate Agriculture Committee leadership, and doubt from leagues of others who just didn’t believe it would happen.

The prairie pothole region is important wildlife habitat in danger of being converted into agricultural uses. Photo credit: US Fish and Wildlife Service

NWF supported the amendment because it ensures that taxpayer dollars don’t fund practices that harm wildlife and the public good.  The requirements are simple: in order to receive premium subsidies on crop insurance farmers must a) refrain from draining wetlands and b) implement a soil conservation plan when farming highly erodible land (see our 2012 Farm Bill priorities page). It will not add extra administrative burdens to the USDA or prevent farmers from obtaining any crop insurance. It’s a commonsense provision and a fair trade for $90 billion dollars in subsidies over the next 10 years. However, interest groups who opposed compliance continue to expect taxpayer support to come no strings attached.

During the past few months, I’ve supported my NWF coworkers as they fought a tireless battle to get this provision into the Senate version of the Farm Bill, even though it may have seemed impossible at times. They weren’t alone in the fight—organizations like the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, American Farmland Trust, the Izaak Walton League and others fought alongside them.

Soon, the House Agriculture Committee will begin work on their version of the Farm Bill and the battle will start all over again. It is crucial that the same protections are extended to wildlife habitat in the House version of the bill. There will be many people who oppose this, for many different reasons. Most of those reasons are just some other version of “it can’t be done.”

But my point is this: anything is possible for those who try.

What Can You Do?

If you want to keep your tax dollars from supporting unsustainable farming practices and help protect America’s wetlands, streams, rivers and lakes, you can help. Over 17,000 wildlife fans asked their Senator to support soil and wetlands conservation in the Senate Farm Bill; now we would like to ask you  to contact your representative in the House and ask for the same thing.

Speak up for Northern Pintail Ducks and urge for wildlife protection in the House Farm Bill.

Groups Call on Senate Leaders to Support “Conservation Compliance” Amendment in Farm Bill

Photo by Larry Hitchens.

The hundred groups signed on to the letter include hunting, fishing, farming and conservation organizations, representing millions of Americans who care about protecting soil, wetlands and wildlife habitat.

Hundreds of Organizations Ask Congress to “Hold the Line” on Conservation Programs in the Farm Bill

June 12 – Today, more than 500 organizations, businesses and individuals signed a letter asking congressional leaders not to further cut funding to the Conservation Title of the Farm Bill. Noting that conservation programs already have been significantly cut in recent years and will bear more than their fair share of deficit reduction in the Farm Bill as currently drafted, the letter asks Congress to “hold the line” on conservation funding at the amounts provided in the bill approved by the Senate Agriculture Committee.

And here are highlights from NWF in the News:

• AFP: US begins review of new Keystone pipeline route
• MSNBC: Cartoonist turns lawsuit threat into $100K charity fundraiser
• Public News Service: High Park Fire: Sign of Things to Come this Summer?
• The News Herald: Deadline for Great American Campout at Heritage Park is today
• Indian Country Today: Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Receive Top Conservation Award
• EnergyWire: Do increasing oil flows open door to more spills? (subscription required)
• Journal Sentinel: Opinion: Federal review needed for pipeline repair project
• Michigan Live: Column: Enbridge puts Michigan residents at risk with pipeline project
• Frederick News-Post: Nature for rent

For more, visit www.nwf.org/News

Western Meadowlark, Photo Credit John and Karen Hollingsworth

With the Farm Bill, a mammoth piece of legislation that touches most Americans in one way or another, being kept out of the limelight could allow some very harmful policies to progress. Unless members of Congress who care about protecting habitat and saving wetlands step up to fix the legislation, decades of conservation achievements could get wiped out.

Subsidizing the Destruction of Wetlands and Habitat

The Senate will soon begin debate on its version of the bill, which makes an effort to move away from direct cash subsidies to farmers. Federally subsidized crop insurance would become the main safety net for farmers – guaranteeing their income, whether or not there is a crop failure or weather disaster.

For this reason, federal crop insurance is extremely popular – over 260 million acres are covered by the program, a participation rate of over 80 percent for the major crops. With increased participation comes an increased cost: the Congressional Budget Office estimates the taxpayer cost over the next decade to be $90 billion.

While replacing  direct cash subsidies with federal crop insurance is good policy in many ways, such a move creates a problem in that, unlike other farm subsidies, federal crop insurance does not require farmers to comply with basic conservation requirements.

Known as “conservation compliance,” this policy ensures that where public money is invested, farmers will implement measures to minimize erosion on their most erosion-prone fields and refrain from draining wetlands.  The penalty for not meeting these basic stewardship expectations is withholding agricultural subsidies – except for subsidized crop insurance. Where farmers are willing to forgo conservation payments and other, smaller commodity support programs, there would be nothing left to ensure protection for soils and wetlands.

To learn more about conservation compliance, read our Conservation Compliance Factsheet (pdf).

Exacerbated by extremely high commodity prices, this giant loophole in the Senate’s version of the Farm Bill could result in huge increases in soil erosion and the largest taxpayer subsidized destruction of wetlands since the policy was established in 1985.    

Closing the Loophole

The good news is there is a simple fix. Congress can make sure that current conservation compliance provisions for Farm Bill programs are retained and re-applied to federal subsidies for crop insurance.

This common sense solution does not require radical reforms, nor will it increase spending. Instead, re-establishing the existing and logical covenant between taxpayers and producers represented by the conservation compliance regimen can save tax dollars, protect natural resources and increase conservation outcomes relative to current conditions. It is imperative that the 2012 Farm Bill takes this opportunity to steer federal policy toward an agricultural future that serves all Americans.  It seems like more than a fair request in exchange for our $90 billion investment in subsidizing crop insurance.

Take Action

  Protect Great Plains wetlands–tell your senators to oppose loopholes in the Farm Bill that would reward farmers for draining wetlands.

Helping Farmers Who Help Wildlife

August 4 – The extreme flooding of 2011 has affected thousands of Americans. Year to date, there have been 47 declared disasters and emergencies in the U.S. in response to the impacts of severe storms and flooding. These events have taken lives, destroyed communities and racked up millions, if not billions, of dollars in damages.

Here is a look at how the floods have impacted one sector of the economy, and how the solutions NWF helped craft made a real difference for people and wildlife.

Major Victory for Salmon

August 3 – A U.S. District Court judge ruled yesterday that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service failed for the third time in 10 years to produce a legal and scientifically adequate plan (biological opinion) to protect imperiled Columbia-Snake River salmon from extinction.

“For a decade now, we have been advocating for real solutions to save salmon,” said John Kostyack, Vice President of Wildlife Conservation at the National Wildlife Federation. “With salmon populations hovering near 1 percent of their historic levels, the time for half-measures and vague promises is over.

Climate Change Hurts Indian Tribes Disproportionately, Report Finds

August 3 – North American Indian Tribes are especially harmed by climate change, as more ecological shifts and more frequent, more extreme weather events occur. Because Tribes are heavily dependent on natural resources, severe weather events like droughts, floods, wildfires, and snowstorms make tribal communities particularly vulnerable and impact Native Americans more than they impact the general population.

“Extreme weather events can be very destructive for Tribes, many of whom are already suffering from lack of resources to begin with,” said Dr. Amanda Staudt, scientist, National Wildlife Federation. “Heat waves and droughts can exacerbate plant and wildlife mortality, heighten the risk of wildfires and habitat loss, and compromise tribal lands.”

Science Solid: America’s Polar Bears on Thin Ice

August 2 – The Bureau of Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) has reportedly placed on administrative leave Dr. Charles Monnett, a wildlife biologist, pending an internal investigation into “integrity issues.” Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) has alleged the probe is a “political attempt to impugn [Dr. Monnett’s] observations on polar bears’ vulnerability to retreating sea ice.”

“When it comes to science demonstrating the threat to polar bears posed by global warming, this study is only the tip of the iceberg,” said Dr. Doug Inkley, senior scientist with the National Wildlife Federation. “There’s a massive body of established scientific evidence showing receding Arctic sea ice is putting polar bears in greater danger with each passing year.”

Wildlife Bears Heavy Burden Under Debt Ceiling Deal

August 2 – Legislation to raise the debt ceiling and cut federal spending passed Congress today and was signed into law by President Obama. The deal imposes discretionary budget program caps, resulting in reductions for the Departments of Interior, Agriculture and Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, and other agencies that focus on conservation.

“The deal to resolve the Congressional debt ceiling crisis and avoid the catastrophe of a national default is clearly a relief for America,” said Larry Schweiger, president and CEO of the National Wildlife Federation. But moving forward, members of Congress must remember the heavier a burden our conservation programs are forced to bear in the short term, the higher a risk we face in the long term – not just in higher public health costs, but in jeopardizing the wildlife and special places that generations of Americans have protected and handed down to their children and grandchildren.”

And here are highlights from NWF in the News:

• The New York Times: Climate Change an Extra Burden for Native Americans, Study Says
• The National Journal: U.S. Oil Giants Poised to Gain on Keystone Pipeline

For more, visit www.nwf.org/News