There is mixed reaction within the conservation community over policies and conservation funding in the projected federal farm program, according to the Wildlife Management Institute.

While there were some items of concern in the administration's new Farm Bill proposal, which was released several weeks ago, a number of recommendations met with community approval and support. These included an increase in spending of $7.8 billion for conservation programs over the next 10 years, expansion of the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) and incorporation of "sodsaver" language, which would preclude subsidy payments to producers who plow existing grasslands.

One recommendation that quickly drew fire was that some Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands be made available for biomass production. Many people familiar with CRP are skeptical of the claim that wildlife benefits can be maintained at an acceptable level on tracts also used for production of biomass.

Concerns over the next Farm Bill were escalated when the administration's 2008 budget proposal was released last week. The proposed agriculture budget is slightly higher than the current year's allocation, but it is about 5 percent below expenditures for 2006. This is despite substantial savings in subsidy payments that will likely be realized in 2008 due to high crop prices. Many feel these funds should have been redirected to other areas in the agriculture budget, specifically conservation programs.

While the administration followed through on its strong support for WRP, by proposing nearly double the current allocation (to $455 million) and by adding a 23-percent increase in spending (from $257 million to $316 million) for the Conservation Security Program (CSP), there was still cause for concern. CSP provides economic incentives for landowners to maintain and enhance natural resources on their lands. Most people familiar with CSP agree that, to date, wildlife benefits from it have been quite variable nationwide.

Conservationists find it troublesome that the 2008 budget proposes no direct funding for the Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP) and the Grassland Reserve Program (GRP). The administration recommended that these programs be rolled into the much larger Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP), but proposed a $17 million cut for EQIP for 2008. Conservationists fear that wildlife benefits provided by WHIP and GRP would be watered down if incorporated within a reduced EQIP, which has objectives substantially broader than improved and enhanced wildlife habitat.

Then, after the administration's 2008 budget proposal was released, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) made two announcements that have very serious implications for wildlife around the country and particularly in the agricultural Midwest. Both relate to CRP.

First, USDA released a notice that no general signups will be scheduled for CRP effective immediately through the end of fiscal year 2008, which ends September 30, 2008. USDA estimates that this will cause a drop in CRP enrollment from 37 million acres to 34 million acres nationwide. Besides the imminent loss to a remarkably successful program, conservationists also find it troubling that USDA is removing from landowners the option of CRP participation. Although many landowners may decide to convert their marginal farmland or expiring CRP acreage to crops to take advantage of projected high commodity prices, it is hoped that others will opt to keep their acres enrolled in CRP. It is being argued that landowners, not USDA, should be making these land-use decisions.

The second and even more troublesome announcement is that USDA is considering allowing producers to opt out of existing, unexpired CRP contracts so that additional corn can be planted to address the demand for ethanol. If implemented, this has the potential to eliminate much of the high-quality grassland habitat established during the past two decades, to the certain detriment of wildlife, soils and water quality. Over the next several months, USDA will be assessing 2007 corn production levels, with plans to announce its determination and decision shortly thereafter.

Conservationists are hopeful that, in its haste to promote biofuel production and in the absence of any apparent energy-conservation plan, the administration will carefully consider the significant costs of reducing or removing Farm Bill conservation provisions that have proven effective and beneficial to the landscape and its inhabitants.