1 / 30

Evaluating Conservation Reserve Program: Suggestions for Improvement

A study on perceptions of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) explores barriers to enrollment and recommends changes for better wildlife programs. Findings reveal manager perceptions vs. landowner reality. Next steps include informing policymakers to reduce rule complexity, shift to stewardship, and adopt a working-lands approach.

lunea-robles
Télécharger la présentation

Evaluating Conservation Reserve Program: Suggestions for Improvement

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Perceptions of the Conservation Reserve Program: is it time for a change? Dustin R Martin and Joseph J Fontaine

  2. Federal and State Lands Source: FSA; National Wilderness Inst.

  3. Federal and State Lands Source: FSA; National Wilderness Inst.

  4. Federal and State Lands CRP Enrollment – Oct 2011 Source: FSA; National Wilderness Inst.

  5. Photo: CFRA; NBC News; J Fontaine

  6. Source: U.S. Dept of Ag FSA

  7. Photo: IA Senate Dem.

  8. Source: U.S. Dept of Ag FSA

  9. Source: U.S. Dept of Ag FSA

  10. Source: Am Enterprise Instit.

  11. Source: U.S. Dept of Ag FSA

  12. Potential Problems Photo: CFRA; NBC News

  13. Potential Problems Photo: CFRA; NBC News; Nebraska PF

  14. Potential Problems Photo: CFRA; NBC News; Nebraska PF; J Laskowski

  15. Goals • Determine barriers to enrollment in CRP • Determine potential changes to increase enrollment for wildlife programs

  16. Focus Groups • Wildlife Biologists • Farm Bill Biologists

  17. Focus Group Objectives Assess managers’ perceptions of: • Biologist limitations of implement CRP • Landowner limitations to enrollment in CRP • Landowner attitude change about CRP

  18. Focus Group Objectives Assess managers’ perceptions of: • Biologist limitations of implement CRP • Landowner limitations to enrollment in CRP • Landowner attitude change about CRP

  19. Focus Group Objectives Assess managers’ perceptions of: • Biologist limitations of implement CRP • Landowner limitations to enrollment in CRP • Landowner attitude change about CRP

  20. Focus Group Objectives Assess managers’ perceptions of: • Biologist limitations of implement CRP • Landowner limitations to enrollment in CRP • Landowner attitude change about CRP

  21. 9 Focus Groups across Nebraska 32 participants

  22. Results • Biologist limitations of implement CRP • Program rules • Cost-share rates • Lack of cultural shift at FSA • Not flexible

  23. Results • Landowner limitations to enrollment • Commodity prices • Management requirements • Social issues • Rules/paperwork • Contract length • Static rental payments

  24. Results • Landowner attitude change • Demographic change • Issues with trust in government • Climate change/drought • Will become irrelevant program if it doesn’t adapt

  25. Do manager perceptions match landowner reality?

  26. Next Steps

  27. Next Steps n~15,000 Landowners

  28. How can we inform policymakers? • Reduce complexity of program rules • Move from commodity-assistance program to stewardship • Develop a working-lands perspective

More Related