Upload
sydney-burgess
View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Michael Brewer, Thomas Green, Joy Landis, and Brenna Wanous
Michigan State University IPM ProgramIPM Institute of North America
Grower Incentives for IPM: Invite to the Northcentral IPM/NRCS Workgroup
Broad goal: Encourage adoption of IPM as a joint conservation and plant protection tool through grower participation in conservation programs administered by the USDA NRCS
Grower Incentives for IPM
Sponsors:
Partners:
Michigan IPM Alliance
IPM Institute of North America
Sister Land-Grant IPM Programs
NC Region IPM Committee (NCERA 201)
Grower Incentives for IPM
(Research + Extension) + Regulation + Conservation
Research/extension incentives– Research– Extension– Special projects: Diagnostics, IPM
Regulatory incentives– Pesticide registration– Pesticide applicator training
Conservation (Financial) incentives
• Farm health:plant protection– Compatible tactics– Economically and socially
acceptable– Environmentally benign
• Environmental health: Mitigate natural resource concerns
Soil Water Air
Plant Animal Human
• States: Implement IPM with joint plant protection and resource conservation value– Reduced-risk pesticides– Reduced-risk application methods– Biologically-based management methods– Cultural management methods
Joining perspectives
• What Farm Bill says:
Agricultural production and conservation are compatible goals
Overview: Workgroup objectives
• Facilitate communications between IPM community and NRCS
• Assemble resources for growers and IPM personnel region-wide to facilitate grower entry into conservation programs for IPM support
• Explore opportunities to develop lasting cooperative mechanisms between IPM community and NRCS
Technical: Farm-specific conservation planning
Financial: Farm Bill conservation programs Working lands: land in agricultural production
EQIP: Environmental Quality Incentive Program– Assist growers to demonstrate benefit
of conservation practices – ‘Green payment’ (WTO)– Stable and growing
CSP: Conservation Stewardship Programnew FB: nationwide, acreage allocation
Grower Incentives for IPMConservation (Financial) incentives
1997-02 $1 B
2008 $1 B
New FB more
1997-2002 Nationwide: 0.77%Top ten: 2.3%No.<1%: 35
Where we started: 97-02 EQIP investment in IPM
% state EQIP budget to IPM
Brewer et al. 2004Hoard & Brewer 2006
NRCS practices (pest management):
595, Pest management
328, Conservation crop rotation
386, Field border
Closer to home: IPM (reducing pesticide use) behind schedule. GAO report
Farm Bill says YES!
Key Program attributes affecting grower participationRanking & incentive levels: Low
Guidance & tools: Lack of clear IPM standards
Technical assistance: Pest management plans needed
Market/help voluntary conservation!
Brewer et al. 2004, Hoard and Brewer 2006 NRDC ISSUE PAPER Feb. 2007 “More IPM Please”
EQIP analysis: IPM as a joint conservation and plant protection tool?
Facilitate communications between IPM community and NRCS
Initial two-day regional meeting (face to face)
Monthly topical conference callsRanking and incentive ratesPest management planningCooperative agreements
Resource concerns addressed with
Resource prioritiesSoil
Water
Air
Plant
Animal
Human
Practices
– Pest management (multi-functional)
Reduced-risk pesticidesReduced-risk application methodsBiologically-based managementCultural management
– Nutrient management
– Irrigation water management
– Ag chemical containment facility
– Field border
– Residue management
– Cover crops
2002
New
Brewer et al. 2004Hoard & Brewer 2006
Key attribute: Ranking and Incentive Levels
Implementing IPM with joint plant protection and pest management value
• Pest monitoring and forecasting • Electronic canopy sensing and shields
to sprayers • Flamer/steamer weed control• Pesticides with low water
contamination potential • Non-pesticide pest reduction strategies• Disease inoculum reduction strategies• Organic mulches • Neglected orchard removal
Assemble resources for growers and IPM personnel to identify IPM tools for addressing resource concerns in conservation programs
Our web site www.ipm.msu.edu/work-group/home.htm
Collection of state specific data on EQIP/incentive rates
Template for building collaborationsTemplates for pest management planningLinks to IPM elements
Key attribute: Guidance and Tools
Key attribute: Technical assistance
Ongoing partnerships are key– Pest management planning
– California: Extension web-facilitated pest management planning (grants)
– Planning examples at our web site
– Explore opportunities to develop lasting cooperative mechanisms between IPM community and NRCS
– Connecticut: Extension participation in pest management planning (ongoing IPM partnership)
– West Virginia: Facilitate planning (new Extension partnership)
1997-2002 Nationwide: 0.77%
2005/06 Nationwide: 2.8%
Top ten<1% of budget
Hoard & Brewer 2006
% state EQIP budget to IPM
An indicator: EQIP investment in IPM IPM as a joint conservation and plant protection tool
Farmers, consultants, agency, Extension
An indicator: people served
Success storieswww.ipm.msu.edu/work-group/success.htm
IPM as a joint conservation and plant protection tool
Key attribute:
Market/help voluntary conservation
Resources/shared experiences key
– View our web sitewww.ipm.msu.edu/work-group/home.htm
– Participate in our conference call
– Email Brenna Wanous <[email protected]>
Many thanks and IPM Symposium Award winning:• Michigan State University• Penn State• University of California• Maine Department of AgricultureNon-government organizations• NRDCNRCS• Michigan (state & 8 counties) • DC staffCSREESEPA
Grower Incentives for IPM: Report from the Northcentral Workgroup